
I! .- -H^Jj M - 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/amendmentoflawsrOOunit 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
* •*> COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO FISH- 
ERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN 
ALASKA 




STATEMENTS OF 
HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM 

DELEGATE PROM ALASKA 

DR. B. W. EVERMANN 

BUREAU OF FISHERIES 

MR. M. C. MARSH 

BUREAU OF FISHERIES 

THE ALASKA PACKERS' ASSOCIATION 
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR 



APRIL 19, 25, and 28, and 
MAY 2, 3, 5, 9, and 25 
and JUNE 18, 1910 



Sixty-First Congress, Second Session 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 






HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



SV^ - COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO FISH 

ERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN 

ALASKA 



STATEMENT OF 
HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM 

DELEGATE FROM ALASKA 



APRIL 19, 1910 



Sixty-First Congress, Second Session 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 



Committee on the Territories, 

Tuesday, April 19, 1910. 
The committee was called to order at 10.50 a. m., Hon. William H. 
Draper presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, DELEGATE FROM 

ALASKA. 

[H. R. 22579, Sixty-first Congress, second session.] 

A BILL Making additional and amendatory provisions for civil government in the Territory of Alaska, 

and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That section one of an act entitled "An act for the protection 
and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," approved June twenty-sixth, nineteen 
hundred and six, is hereby amended to read as follows: 

"That every person, company, or corporation carrying on the business of canning, 
curing, or preserving fish, or manufacturing fish products, or engaging in fishing in 
any manner whatsoever within the Territory of Alaska, or in any parts of the waters 
of Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, shall pay a license therefor 
for each year as follows: For all salmon or other food fish canned in one-pound cans, 
five cents per case of forty-eight cans: Provided, That if the canning is done in other 
sized cans the rate shall be in proportion; fish oil, ten cents per one hundred pounds; 
fertilizer from fish or other sea animal, fifty cents per ton; for all salmon or halibut or 
other food fish caught in Alaskan waters and carried out of the Territory of Alaska 
fresh frozen, mild cured, pickled, dry salted, smoked, or in any other condition, ten 
cents per one hundred pounds; for each fishing boat propelled with oars or sails, one 
dollar: Provided, That this shall not apply to a single boat owned or used by any 
bona fide resident of Alaska for fishing; for each launch, tug, steamer, or sailing vessel 
used in the fishing trade in Alaskan waters or in transporting fishermen, employees, 
supplies, or fish in the waters of Alaska, or to and from Alaska, one dollar per gross ton 
capacity: Provided further, That any such vessel owned or used by any bona fide 
resident of Alaska exclusively in the Alaska fishing trade shall only pay fifty cents 
per ton gross capacity; for each stake trap, floating trap, fish wheel, or other mechan- 
ical device for catchingfood fish in the tidal waters of Alaska, or in any of the streams 
emptying into Bristol Bay or the Pacific Ocean waters, one hundred dollars ; for each 
haul seine, purse seine, or gill net, one cent per yard: Provided, That if the owner of 
said seine or net is a bona fide resident of Alaska and uses the said seine or net 
exclusively therein, he shall pay but one-half a cent per yard; for all walrus ivory 
and whalebone taken in the waters of Alaska, or by any vessel or person, company 
or corporation, engaged in business in Alaska or which shall come into Alaska for 
clearance from any customs-house, or which shall be landed in Alaska for any purpose 
whatever, one cent per pound." 

Sec. 2. That the payment and collection of such license taxess hall be under and 
in accordance with the provisions of the act of March third, eighteen hundred and 
ninety -nine, entitled "An act to define and punish crimes in the District of Alaska, 
and to provide a code of criminal procedure for said District," and any amendments 
subsequently made thereto by Congress: Provided, That all sums of money collected 
by the clerks of the district courts of Alaska under this act shall, on the first day of 
January, April, July, and October immediately following the collection, be trans- 
mitted to the Treasury Department of the United States, there to remain as a separate 
and distinct fund, to be known as the "Alaska fund — Fisheries," and to be wholly 
devoted to the purposes hereinafter in this section stated in the Territory of Alaska. 



4 LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 

One-fifth of said fund shall be, and hereby is, appropriated to the establishment and 
maintenance of salmon fish hatcheries in the Territory of Alaska, and a cod hatchery 
on Shumagin Islands, and shall be expended by the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Fisheries under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor; one-fifth of 
said fund shall be transmitted to the clerks of the district courts in the four judicial 
districts in Alaska, in equal parts, and said equal parts shall be expended under the 
orders of the respective judges of said courts in defraying the necessary incidental 
expenses of maintaining said courts; two-fifths of said fund shall be expended by 
the governor of the Territory of Alaska, within his discretion and under his direction, 
in building schoolhouses and maintaining public schools outside of incorporated 
towns in said Territory; and one-fifth of said fund shall be expended by the governor 
of the Territory of Alaska, within his discretion and under his direction, in the estab- 
lishment and maintenance of a home for aged, disabled, and pioneer prospectors, 
and in aid and support of sick and indigent persons in said Territory. 

Sec. 3. That on and after the approval of this act, section two of "An act for the 
protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," approved June twenty-sixth, 
nineteen hundred and six, shall be, and the same is hereby, repealed: Provided, That 
said repeal shall not release any person, company, or corporation from the performance 
of any duty or obligation then due thereunder. 

Sec. 4. That every person, company, or corporation engaged in the fishing trade in 
Alaska who shall bring merchandise therein to sell to the employees of such person, 
company, or corporation, or to anyone else, at any other place than in an established 
store regularly maintained during the year, shall pay double the license tax upon such 
business imposed upon mercantile establishments by section twenty -nine of "An act 
making further provision for a civil government for Alaska, and for other purposes," 
approved June sixth, nineteen hundred, and it shall be the duty of every district attor- 
ney and of each of his assistants in Alaska to give special attention to the enforcement 
of the license tax laws and of this section. 

Sec. 5. That every male person, over the age of twenty-one years, who shall be en- 
gaged or employed in any branch of the fishing trade or business in the Territory of 
Alaska, either on vessels or on shore, in canneries or other fishing plant, or as a sailor 
or employee on any vessel engaged in said trade, including herein all Chinamen, 
Japanese, and other foreigners who shall engage as employee or otherwise in any part 
of the said work, or at all, except Indians resident in Alaska, shall pay road poll tax 
of three dollars per day for two days; and every person, company, or corporation 
employing any such person in Alaska shall make a statement under oath, in writing, 
to the clerk of the district court in that division wherein said person is employed, set- 
ting forth in detail the number of persons so employed, and shall retain from the wages 
or sums due to each of such employees the said sum of six dollars, and shall pay the 
same to the said clerk; and every such person, company, or corporation shall be held 
liable to the Government and shall pay to said clerk the sum of six dollars in payment 
for said road poll tax, and upon failure to so pay the same upon demand the district 
attorney for the division in which the said employee shall have worked shall bring a 
suit or suits in the district court in that division to recover the same; and in bringing 
said suit or suits the total sum due on account of all employees for which the said per- 
son, company, or corporation may be liable may be joined in one or more suits at the 
discretion of the district attorney. All sums so recovered shall be paid to the clerk of 
the court, and all sums received by the clerk on that account shall, at the time that 
fish-license taxes are forwarded to the Treasury Department of the United States, be 
forwarded to and deposited in the Treasury Department of the United States and 
there added to the "Alaska fund" created and described in amended section one 
of "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide for the construction and main- 
tenance of roads, the establishment and maintenance of schools, and the care and 
support of insane persons in the district of Alaska, and for other purposes,'" which 
amendatory act was approved May fourteenth, nineteen hundred and six (Thirty- 
fourth Statutes at Large, page one hundred and ninety-two), and expended for the 
uses provided in said section one as therein enacted. 

Sec. 6. That in addition to the license tax imposed upon trades and business by 
the twenty-ninth section of the act of Congress entitled "An act making further 
provision for a civil government for Alaska, and for other purposes," approved June 
sixth, nineteen hundred, and the acts amendatory thereof, any person or persons, 
company or corporation prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any of the following 
lines of business within the Territory of Alaska shall first apply for and obtain license 
so to do from a district court or a subdivision thereof in said* Territory, and pay for 
said license for the respective lines of business and trade as follows, to wit: 

Barber shops, five dollars per annum. 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 5 

Dredges, operating any part of the season, one-half of one per centum of the gross 
amount of gold or other mineral secured during the year. 

Electric-light plants furnishing light or power for sale: In towns or communities of 
less than five hundred population, fifty dollars per annum; in towns or communities 
of five hundred or more and less than one thousand population, one hundred and 
fifty dollars per annum; in towns or communities of one thousand or more population, 
three hundred dollars per annum. 

Lodging anH road houses, fifteen dollars per annum. 

Mines: Coal, one cent per ton for each ton mined; copper, ten cents per ton for each 
ton mined; gold, one-half of one per centum of the gross amount of gold secured from 
any quartz mine during the year. 

Telegraph and telephone lines, five dollars per annum for each mile of line in opera- 
tion: Provided, That the said additional license tax declared in this section shall be 
collected and paid into the Treasury Department of the United States and expended 
for the uses and in the manner declared in the acts to which this section is amendatory 
and additional. 

Sec. 7. That any person who, prior to the passage of this act, has made entry under 
the homestead laws in any State or Territory except Alaska, may, nevertheless, 
make an additional homestead entry in Alaska of not to exceed one hundred and 
sixty acres of agricultural land under and in accordance with the terms and provisions 
of "An act to amend section one of the act of Congress approved May fourteenth, 
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, entitled 'An act extending the homestead laws 
and providing for a right of way for railroads in the District of Alaska,'" approved 
March third, nineteen hundred and three. 

Sec. 8. That in so far as the provisions of this act shall conflict with other and prior 
acts of Congress, the other and prior acts shall be held to be modified and amended 
thereby. 

Mr. Draper. The Chairman, Mr. Hamilton, is unable to be present 
this morning, and I have been requested to preside over this meeting 
for the purpose of hearing Judge Wickersham upon the bill H. R. 
22579, making additional and amendatory provisions for civil govern- 
ment in the Territory of Alaska. This bill relates, I understand, to 
the regulation of the fisheries in Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, the matter for hearing this 
morning is bill H. R. 22579, "A bill making additional and amendatory 
provisions for civil government in the Territory of Alaska, and for 
other purposes." The main object, however, of the bill is the cor- 
rection of some of the defects in the fisheries law of Alaska. 

If the committee will permit me, I will make a general statement 
of the situation in Alaska. Mr. Browne, who represents some of the 
fishing interests in Alaska, is also here, and I understand desires to 
be heard. He is attorney for some of the fishing companies and wishes 
to address the committee in their interest upon this same subject. 

I want to say at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, that I am very much 
interested in the fisheries of Alaska. It is one of the great natural 
resources of the United States. I have only the kindliest feeling for 
every man engaged in that business in Alaska, and my only desire is 
to have that done which, in the utmost friendliness, will encourage 
the growth of the fishing trade in the Territory. That trade is so 
highly important that I would not want anything that I may say, or 
anything which appears in my bill, to influence any member of this 
committee unfairly against the fisheries people, because they are 
engaged in a business that brings into the tracle of the United States 
more than $10,000,000 per annum; thej employ something like 
twelve or fifteen thousand men, and they have a large fleet of vessels 
engaged in the trade. It is a trade that needs encouragement, and 
aid and comfort and assistance, and I am here for the purpose of 
trying to give that. But at the same time I have some criticism to 



6 LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 

make of the manner in which they are now conducting that business 
in Alaska, and I have to some extent embodied those criticisms in 
this bill. But in going over the bill more carefully I am satisfied 
that it will need correction. As you will hear the witnesses and the 
attorneys for the companies operating there I am satisfied that the 
committee will come to the conclusion that some corrections should 
be made in this bill, and I certainly have come to that conclusion 
myself. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the criminal code for the Territory of 
Alaska, enacted by Congress in 1899, there are some provisions 
assessing a tax upon trades and occupations in the Territory of 
Alaska, and among the trades and business that were taxed by that 
act were the fisheries. I would like to read from section 460 of the 
criminal code, as amended, so as to give you a clear idea of what the 
law is. in Alaska in relation to taxing the fisheries [reads]: 

That any person or persons, corporation or company, prosecuting or attempting to 
prosecute any of the following lines of business within the District of Alaska shall 
first apply for and obtain license so to do from a district court or a subdivision thereof 
in said district, and pay for said license for the respective lines of business and trade 
as follows, to wit — 

And then follows different characters of business, including fisheries, 
as follows: 

Fisheries: Salmon canneries, four cents per case; salmon salteries, ten cents per 
barrel; fish-oil works, ten cents per barrel; fertilizer works, twenty cents per ton. 

Now, there were two or three amendments to the fisheries law in 
1906, but the one that I want to call to your attention is in section 1 
of the act of June 26, 1906, an act for the protection and regulation of 
the fisheries of Alaska. The first section of that act reads as follows: 

That every person, company, or corporation carrying on the business of canning, 
curing, or preserving fish or manufacturing fish products within the territory known as 
Alaska, ceded to the United States by Russia by the treaty of March thirtieth, eighteen 
hundred and sixty-seven, or in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United 
States has jurisdiction, shall, in lieu of all other license fees and taxes therefor and 
thereon, pay license taxes on their said business and output as follows: 

You will see how broad that law is — 

Canned salmon, four cents per case; pickled salmon, ten cents per barrel; salt salmon, 
in bulk, five cents per one hundred pounds; fish oil, ten cents per barrel; fertilizer, 
twenty cents per ton. 

You will notice that that amends section 460, which I first read to 
you, in two or three respects so that practically the law of 1906 takes 
the place of the law of 1899 [continues reading]: 

The payment and collection of such license taxes shall be under and in accordance 
with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1899, entitled "An act to define and punish 
crimes in the District of Alaska, and to provide a code of criminal procedure for the 
District, " and amendments thereto. 

Now, section 2 is an important section of this act of 1906. It reads 
as follows [reads] : 

Sec. 2. That the catch and pack of salmon made in Alaska by the owners of private 
salmon hatcheries operated in Alaska shall be exempt from all lincense fees and taxa- 
tion of every nature at the rate of ten cases of canned salmon to every one thousand 
red or King salmon fry liberated, upon the following conditions: 

In other words, in this act of 1906, gentlemen, Congress passed a law 
providing for a rebate of the taxes which had formerly been assessed 
by the act of 1899, and were again assessed by this act of 1906. In 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN" ALASKA. 7 

other words, if the canneries should erect and maintain hatcheries 
and liberate small fish or fry, they should have a rebate upon their 
taxes for so doing, as follows: 

That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor may, from time to time, and on the 
application of the hatchery owner shall, within a reasonable time thereafter, cause 
such private hatcheries to be inspected for the purpose of determining the character 
of their operations, efficiency, and productiveness, and if he approves the same shall 
cause notice of such approval. to be filed in the office of the clerk or deputy clerk of 
the United States district court for the division of the District of Alaska wherein any 
such hatchery is located, and shall also notify the owners of such hatchery of the 
action taken by him. The owner, agent, officer, or superintendent of any hatchery 
the effectiveness and productiveness of which has been approved as above provided, 
shall, between the thirtieth day of June and the thirty-first day of December of each 
year, make proof of the number of salmon fry liberated during the twelve months 
immediately preceding the thirtieth day of June, by a written statement under oath. 
Such proof shall be filed in the office of the clerk or deputy clerk of the United States 
district^pourt of the division of the District of Alaska wherein such hatchery is located, 
and when so filed shall entitle the respective hatchery owners to the exemption as 
herein provided; and a false oath as to the number of salmon fry liberated shall be 
deemed perjury and subject the offender to all the pains and penalties thereof. Dupli- 
cates of such statements shall also be filed with the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 
It shall be the duty of such clerk or deputy clerk in whose office the approval and 
proof heretofore provided for are filed to forthwith issue to the hatchery owner causing 
such proof to be filed certificates, which shall not be transferable and of such denomi- 
nations as such owner may request (no certificate to cover fewer than one thousand fry), 
covering in the aggregate the number of fry so proved to have been liberated; and 
such certificate may be used at any time by the person, company, corporation, or 
association to whom issued for the payment pro tanto of any license fees or taxes 
upon or against or on account of any catch or pack of salmon made by them in Alaska; 
and it shall be the duty of all public officials charged with the duty of collecting or 
receiving such license fees or taxes to accept such certificate in lieu of money in 
payment of all license fees or taxes upon or against the pack of canned salmon at 
the ratio of one thousand fry for each ten cases of salmon. No hatchery owner 
shall obtain the rebates from the output of any hatchery to which he might otherwise 
be entitled under this act unless the efficiency of said hatchery has been first approved 
by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in the manner herein provided for. 

That is the substance of that act. It goes on and provides for 
some other matters in relation to fisheries in Alaska, but that is the 
substance of that which I wish to call to your attention. 

Mr. Candler. These are private hatcheries put up by the parties 
who deal in the fish ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; in other words, if a cannery in Alaska 
erects its own private hatchery, maintains it, and turns the small 
fry loose, it gets a rebate of ten cases for every thousand small fry 
turned loose. 

Mr. Candler. Is that practiced pretty largely? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I think there are only six or seven hatch- 
eries, but they are very large. They are maintained by the largest 
of these fishing corporations, and thereby become extremely import- 
ant in the consideration of this matter. 

Mr. Candler. They don't take advantage of this rebate, then, in 
furnishing the smaller fish in order to get the benefit of the license? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes they do. 

Mr. Candler. Is it subject to inspection by the Government ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The law says so, but there has never been any 
inspection. As a matter of fact, they make an inspection before 
the certificates are first issued; that is, when the cannery is first 
erected there is an inspection. But after that I understand there is 
practically no inspeciton of any kind, although to some extent there 



8 LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 

must be some formal inspection at least, because the Government 
maintains some hatcheries itself in Alaska. 

Mr. Candler. I was going to ask if the Government has any 
hatcheries in Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, the Government has two. 

Mr. Good. What is the fry ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They are the very small fish. 

Mr. Good. Is that the only name they have ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, we called them minnows in Indiana and 
Illinois, where we used to fish. 

Mr. Browne. It is called a fingerling. 

Mr. Wickersham. The fingerling is a little larger than a fry. The 
fry is the smaller fish, and the fingerling is more suggestive of a fish 
because it is larger. 

Mr. Good. But they develop into large fish? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, undoubtedly. 

HATCHERIES. 

Seven salmon hatcheries were operated during the season of 1907-8, as follows: 



Name. 



Location. 



Owners and operators. 



Fortmann 
Karluk 

Klawak . . 

Hetta 

Quadra . . . 
Yes Lake . 
Afognak.. 



Nana Stream. . . 
Karluk River. . 
Klawak Lake . . 

Hetta Lake 

Quadra Stream 

Yes Lake 

Afognak Island 



Alaska Packers Association. 

Do. 
North Pacific Trading and 

Packing Co. 
Northwestern Fisheries Co. 

Do. 
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 

Do. 



Now, I have been asked how many hatcheries there are. I have 
before me the report of the Bureau of Fisheries for 1908, and on page 
15 of that report, under the heading of " Hatcheries," the official 
report says that seven salmon hatcheries were operated during the 
season of 1907-8, as follows: The Fortmann hatchery, located on the 
Naha stream, owned by the Alaska Packers' Association; the Karluk 
hatchery, located on the Karluk River, owned also by the Alaska 
Packers' Association. The Klawak hatchery, located on Klawak 
Lake, owned by the North Pacific Trading and Packing Company; the 
Hetta and the Quadra hatcheries are owned by the Northwestern 
Fisheries Company. The Yes Lake hatchery, on Yes Lake, and the 
Afognak hatchery at Afognak Island, are both owned by the United 
States Government, and operated under the Bureau of Fisheries, so 
that the Government owns two out of seven of these hatcheries. 
The other five are maintained by the canning companies, and for 
.maintaining them the}^ get a rebate upon their taxes amounting to 
10 cases for every thousand fry liberated. The law charges 4 cents 
tax per case, so that for 10 cases there would be due to the Govern- 
ment in the way of taxes 40 cents. But the company turns a thou- 
sand fry loose, getting a rebate, then, for 40 cents; and I want to call 
your attention to some of the evils in that rebate system. Mr. 
Browne, who is here, represents the Alaska Packers' Association. I 
now produce a certified copy of the clerk's statement of the Alaska 
Packers' Association account for 1907, and substantially it is this: 
The attached statement of the Alaska Packers' Association for season 
1907, shows number of cases of salmon canned, 806,808, and at 4 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 



9 



cents per ease, the tax would amount to $32,272.32. As a matter 
of fact, the company turned in hatchery certificates in lieu of cash, 
$32,272, and they paid the 32 cents in stamps. So that they paid no 
taxes to the Government, or to Alaska, or to anybody else, except 32 
cents, for the enormous amount of the fish that they took out in that 
season. Of course, they say they turned back the fry into the sea. I 
want to call your attention to that. Nobody knows whether they 
did or not. 

Output of the salmon hatcheries of Alaska. 





1907-8. 


1908-9. 


Hatcheries. 


Sockeye. 


Sockeye eggs 
taken. 


Coho 




Eggs taken. 


Fry liber- 
ated. 


eggs 
taken. 


Karluk 


47, SOS, 200 
41,280,000 


43,655,000 
33.920.000 


40,320,000 
24,465,000 
50,000,000 
46,380,000 
3.200,000 
a 7, 600, 000 
a 5, 000, 000 










65,550,000 61.369.0 


17,000 










3,500,000 
8,000,000 


2,776,000 
6, 125, 000 




Hetta 















o Approximate. 

Mr. Browne. May I interrupt you there, Judge? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; certainly. 

Mr. Browne. Have you the figures for 1908-9? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; but I will call the attention of the com- 
mittee to the statistics so far as I have them. I have not all of them. 
But I am not accusing any of these companies, gentlemen, of violating 
the law, or anything of that kind ; I am merely pointing out the facts 
to you. I think they are very largely keeping within the law. It is 
the law that I am complaining about, and not the fishermen, or the 
fishing companies. 

We may get some idea of what the Government loses in this rebate 
law by examining the foregoing table of output of fry from the 
hatcheries. Excluding the government hatcheries, for 1907-8 the 
fry liberated amounted to 86,476,000. For every thousand fry, of 
which there were 86,476, the canneries get a rebate on 10 cases, or a 
rebate on 864,760 cases of 48 cans of 1 pound each. The govern- 
ment tax on that is 4 cents a case, or 864,760 at 4 cents per case 
equals $34,589.60 of a rebate. In other words, the Government 
gives the five private hatcheries that sum in rebates with which to 
maintain their private hatcheries for their own private benefit, and 
they pay no tax of any kind. 

Now, I have here, and produce for your inspection, many of the 
Alaska grand jury reports. 

I will call your attention to only a few of them, and I will take 
them up as nearly as I can in their order. I have here a copy of the 
grand jury report made at Valdez, Alaska, which is in the center of 
the fishing territory, dated Valdez, Alaska, November 27, 1908, and 
signed by M. F. Dennison, foreman, and A. G. Baker, clerk. On the 
subject of fisheries laws the grand jury says: 

Your grand jury finds that the new law relating to the rebate of licensed money to 
canneries operating hatcheries provides for a rebate of 10 cases of salmon, equal to 40 



10 LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 

cents, for each 1,000 red salmon fry liberated from such hatcheries. The said law 
requires the clerk of the court to issue certificates, which are redeemable in money, 
for the payment of the former licenses. In other licensed matters, which are not of 
such importance as this, the court is requested to pass upon them; in this case, the 
most important in many ways to the interests of the Territory, the court has no voice 
whatever. The first year of the operation of this law the Alaska Packers' Association 
shows the release of about 90,000,000 fry. For the year 1907 this same company 
shows, through its own paid agents, the liberation of 80,680,000 fry in the first and 
third divisions, and under the law the clerk was compelled to issue certificates, at 40 
cents for each 1,000 red fry liberated, to the fishing company. These certificates 
were then turned in to the clerk's office in lieu of cash for payment of their license 
tax on the output of their canned salmon. The amount of their taxes for the year 
1907, according to their sworn statement of output, was $32,272.32. Of this amount, 
certificates were turned in to the clerk of this court for the entire amount less 32 
cents. In other words, during the year 1907 the Alaska Packers' Association took 
over 800,000 cases of salmon from the waters of the third division, and for this privilege 
paid but 32 cents in currency, the balance of the tax, $32,272, being wiped out by 
certificates of fry alleged to have been liberated, of which no adequate proof has been 
made. 

Now, I want to call special attention to that last statement of the 
grand jury report. [Continues reading:] 

The clerk of the court has no authority to investigate these statements of fry liber- 
ated, and no provision is made for a check of the production of private hatcheries; thus 
the Alaska fund, that was formerly received from the canneries for the maintenance 
of schools, care of the insane, and the construction and maintenance of roads for the 
benefit of the people of Alaska, was reduced about $30,000 for the year 1907 and about 
$40,000 for the year 1906. The governor of the Territory, as head of the public-school 
system, has no means of anticipating the amount of school funds available at any time, 
as the clerk of the court can not estimate the income from licenses until the affidavits 
of the canneries have been received. These affidavits must stand absolutely unques- 
tioned, as no appeal or check by the court is provided for. Your grand jury therefore 
urgently recommends that this matter be submitted to Congress by our Delegate, with 
a view to having the law repealed, in order that the funds which rightfully belong to 
the Territory for schools and other purposes may again be available for such purposes. 

Your grand jury further recommends that fish hatcheries be established in Alaska 
and maintained by the Government. 

The grand jury then takes up the question of fish traps, and as it is 
short, I will read that statement also for the benefit of the committee. 
[Reads:] 

Your grand jury finds upon investigation that on many of the streams and rivers 
where some canneries are situated that the laws in regard to the placing of fish traps 
at the mouths of said rivers and streams are being constantly violated. These fish 
traps are so constructed that but very few fish can ascend to their spawning grounds, 
and as a consequence each year fish in these streams are becoming more scarce, and 
in many localities the native Indians of Alaska, who almost wholly subsist on salmon, 
are in a half starved and destitute condition. 

For the above and further reason that these native Indians have always been 
peaceable and hospitable, and are entitled to the protection of the Government 
against the greed of the fishing companies, your grand jury urgently recommends 
that our Delegate to Congress submit this matter to Congress, with a view to making 
it unlawful to use fish traps, nets, or any other device or means that will prevent fish 
from ascending any streams or rivers within the Territory of Alaska, to their spawning 
grounds. 

Your grand jury further recommends that a fish commissioner, or other officer 
endowed with proper powers to enforce the fishing laws, be stationed each year, during 
the fishing season, at the principal rivers and streams where canneries or salteries 
are located. 

Now, I think if the committee will permit it, I will go ahead and 
read the objections which the grand juries are making, in the different 
sessions, to these laws, and then take up the bill a little later, because 
it is a matter of very great concern to the Government as well as the 
people of Alaska. 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. H 

I have here a report of the grand jury of a later date, signed by 
J. H. Burton, foreman, and H. H. Hildreth, clerk, dated January, 
1908, and following the other grand jury report which I read to you. 
This report says : 

"Your grand jury find that the new law relating to the rebate of 
license money to canneries operating hatcheries, provides for a 
rebate for 10 cases of salmon equal to 40 cents for each 1,000 of red 
salmon fry liberated from such hatchery," etc. 

There is no use of reading this report to you, because it is practically 
a restatement of what the other grand jury report covers, complaining 
that neither the clerk nor the court there can ascertain whether the 
returns made by the canneries are true or false, but the return when 
once made is conclusive. 

Mr. Langham. Then is there no way by which the fisheries' output 
can be investigated? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, there is; there is a way, but it is not done, 
that is all. 

Mr. Candler. It is taken on an ex parte affidavit, which is con- 
clusive. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and I have forms of these affidavits and 
certificates which I shall be glad to show to the committee. 

Now, I have here also a report of the Alaska Packers' Association 
for the year 1908, and that is the one that you asked me for, was it 
not, Mr. Browne ? . 

Mr. Browne. I think so. 

Mr. Wickersham. In the year 1908 the Alaska Packers' Associa- 
tion turned in hatchery certificates for that year to the Government 
to the amount of $3S, 512.38; Mr. Browne's company turned in one 
certified check for $8,843.58, and the rest of it was paid by hatch- 
eries' certificates. Is that correct, Mr. Browne ? 

Mr. Browne. No; that is not correct. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, that is correct according to the certifi- 
cate that I have here from the clerk of the court at Valdez. 

Mr. Browne. But they come from two districts. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is correct. This certified copy covers 
just one district; that is correct. Excuse me. 

Mr. Browne. As a matter of fact, we paid practically $10,000 that 
year in money. 

Mr. Wickersham. This certified copy is from the Valdez district 
and is dated November 26, 1909, and for the season of 1908. 

Mr. Browne. We are in two districts, you know. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know, but in that district where the large 
amount of your business was conducted the record shows the situ- 
ation. You xpaid $8,843.58 in money, and you paid the remainder 
of the $38,512.38 in hatchery certificates. Let us see why you paid 
the $8,843.58, if we can. 

There is a portion of these fisheries taxes, of course, that can not 
be paid for in certificates. Only the canneries can be rebated, not 
the salteries, nor the fish that is put up in any other form than canned; 
that is the only provision for rebating. I notice that this company 
put up 9,335 barrels of fish in that season. That, of course, could 
not be rebated; that had to be paid for in cash. I can not explain 
why this $8,843.58 in cash was paid other than in that way, or that 
it was paid upon barreled salmon and other fish products which could 
not be paid for by a hatchery certificate. 



12 LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Good. Judge, have you any information as to the cost of these 
different hatcheries that you have mentioned, and the expense of 
operation and maintenance ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have only such information, Mr. Good, as is 
contained in these reports of the Fisheries Bureau, to which I will 
call the attention of the committee in a short time. 

Now, I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, the last report which I 
shall call to your attention, made by the grand jury at Valdez, Alaska. 
It is a report made to the court in October, 1909; it is the most recent 
report. I especially call it to your attention because the foreman of 
the grand jury was Captain Orchard, U. S. Army. Captain Orchard 
is a member of the Alaska board of road commissioners, and is sta- 
tioned at Valdez. Being there he was drawn on the grand jury, was 
made foreman, and evidently gave a great deal of care and attention 
to this matter of fisheries. I wish to call to your attention the report 
of this grand jury upon the subject of the fish industry, which says: 

The Department of Commerce and Labor in the report of the Fish Commissioner 
for 1908 establishes the following facts: This report divides the Territory of Alaska 
in four sections, to wit, the southeastern, central, western, and arctic. Of these four 
divisions two are within the jurisdiction of this court — the central and western. Out 
of a total value of fish products of $11,847,443, the districts within the jurisdiction 
of this court produced $8,000,909, or more than three-quarters of the total production. 

There is some mistake in those figures. The amount is more than 
$8,000,000, but I can not say accurately how much it is, but as the 
report states that it is more than three-quarters of the total produc- 
tion, I think it is something over $8,000,000, and is probably 
$8,909,000 [reading]: 

Now, neither the National Government, the district government, nor the permanent 
citizens of Alaska receive a just share of the benefits of this enormous industry based 
upon a gift of God to our Territory. 

An unjust law enables these large corporations to evade just taxation. The matter 
was duly dwelt upon in the report of the grand jury of 1908. This report shows that 
one corporation packing 800,000 cases of salmon paid the Government the munificent 
sum of 32 cents. A paid agent of the company making affidavit that said company 
had released enough red salmon fry to entitle this corporation to a tax rebate of $32,272, 
which affidavit does not have to be proven in open court, and this rebate of taxes is 
allowed without appeal or check of any kind upon presentation to the clerk of the 
court. Your grand jury is of the opinion that this fry for the release of which the Gov- 
ernment is paying, is mainly for the benefit of these canneries. We particularly call 
the attention of Congress, the Attorney-General, the Department of Commerce and 
Labor, and the public press to this section of our report, with the hope that a thorough 
discussion be had, with a view of eventually bringing about a remedy of one of the 
many evils existent in the matter of Alaskan legislation. 

I have called your attention to the fact that this report is signed 
by Captain Orchard, U. S. Army, for the purpose of showing to you 
that it is not done by some man who might have a feeling or prejudice 
or something of that kind that he wanted to vent upon a corporation. 
Captain Orchard, the foreman of the grand jury who signed the report, 
is a man of such standing and character in the army and in the com- 
munity that there can be no question of that kind raised. 

I wish also to call your attention to the report of the Fisheries 
Bureau for the year 1908. I have not been able to get a copy of the 
report for 1909, since it is not printed. I want to call attention to 
the items of the report of the bureau in the order in which they make 
the report, taking up first the persons engaged in the Alaska fisheries. 
It will be found on pages 7 and 8 of the report. The number of per- 
sons engaged in the fisheries of Alaska in 1908 was 13,337, of whom 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 



13 



4,976 were engaged directly in fishing; 7,740 in the canneries, salteries, 
and at other shore work, and 621 employed on the transporting ves- 
sels. I call attention to that matter for the purpose of showing you 
what a large number of people are already engaged in the fishing 
business of the Territory of Alaska, and also for the purpose of show- 
ing to you the character of the people. 

Persons engaged in the Alaska fisheries in 1908 



Occupation and race. 


Southeast 
Alaska. 


Central 
Alaska. 


Western 
Alaska. 


Total. 


Fishermen: 


1,193 

1,298 
27 


663 
103 


1,554 
138 


3,410 




1,539 




27 








JTotal 


2,518 


766 


1,692 


4,976 


Shoresmen: 

Whites 


519 
886 
765 
435 


307 
165 
393 
374 


1,003 
430 
860 

1,603 


1,829 
1,481 
2,018 


Indians 




2,412 






Total 


2,605 


1,239 


3,896 


7,740 




Transporters: 

\\ hites 


263 
40 


144 
2 


165 
7 


572 


Indians 


49 


Total 


303 


146 


172 


621 




5,426 


2,151 


5,760 


13,337 





Of all the fishermen, there are a total of 3,410 white, 1,539 Indians, 
and 27 Japanese. Of the shoresmen, there are 1,829 white, 1,481 
Indians, 2,018 Chinese, and 2,412 Japanese. Amongst the trans- 
porters, there are 572 white and 49 Indians. I call your attention 
especially to the fact that there are nearly 4,500 Chinese and Japan- 
ese engaged in this trade. I do not do this for the purpose of raising 
a prejudice in your minds, but for the purpose of making this further 
statement to you, that every spring, and at this moment, these can- 
nen T companies are getting ready to go to Alaska to fish, and here 
is what is happening: Down in San Francisco, at Astoria, Oreg., 
and at Seattle, Wash., their boats are being prepared and loaded out 
of their warehouses at the wharves, and they are engaging Chinese 
and Japanese fishermen and other men of various kinds. 

They are loading into those boats at this moment a great mass of 
merchandise to sell to them to eat and wear and drink. They are 
large h T a foreign community of men, going into Alaska to fish; in a 
few days from now they will sail away from the wharves of those 
cities for Alaska, and 10,000 men from other States will invade 
Alaska practically in one day. They w r ill catch salmon worth sev- 
eral millions of dollars; in three months they will have it all canned 
at the canneries, boxed up into cases, and loaded into these vessels. 
They will then load the Japanese and Chinese and the fishermen, who 
were brought into Alaska on contract, into the same ships, and will 
sail away from the Territory. They will have some $10,000,000 of 
the wealth of Alaska in those ships, put up by people who do not live 
in Alaska, and have not the slightest interest there except to take 
away our fish; people who do not pay any taxes of any kind there, 
who do not maintain a home nor pay any tax by which the churches 



14 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES,, ETC., IN ALASKA. 



or schoolhouses or government there are maintained. They go back 
to their homes in distant States with $10,000,000 of our wealth, and 
Alaska is minus $10,000,000. 

Mr. Reynolds. They have large canneries along the coast, have 
they? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and for nine months in the year those 
immense canneries are dead and cold, there being only a single watch- 
man at each cannery. 

Mr. Reynolds. Do they pay taxes ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; not on the shore property; they do not pay 
one cent on the shore property. One watchman will stay there all 
winter, and when these vessels come in sight in the spring he throws 
the doors open, starts the fires, and begins to get out the boats and 
sails. Men are put ashore, and in a little while the bays and rivers 
are covered with sailboats, and you would think, from their appear- 
ance, that it was one of the most thickly inhabited countries m the 
world. 

Mr. Reynolds. Is the business done by corporations ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Wholly; yes, sir. 

Now, referring again to this report of the Fisheries Bureau for 1908, 
the next statement is one with reference to the investment. 



INVESTMENT. 

The total investment in the fisheries was $10,319,784, an increase of $1,103,756 over 
1907. The item of cash capital was eliminated in the 1906 report, and this procedure 
has been followed ever since. 

Investment in the Alaska fisheries in 1908. 





Southeast Alaska. 


Central Alaska. 


Western Alaska. 


Total. 


Items. 


Num- 
ber. 


Value. 


Num- 
ber. 


Value. 


Num- 
ber. 


Value. 


Num- 
ber. 


Value. 


Fishing vessels: 


30 
475 

15 
176 

87 

1,808 

8 

7,385 

1,205 

4 
1 


$171,815 










30 
475 

17 
237 

160 

6,422 

49 

57,055 

2,856 

a4 
61 


$171,815 


Tonnage 














13,800 


2 
61 

27 

1,302 

13 

13,310 

710 


S3, 800 






17,600 










Transporting vessels: 

Steamers and launches . . . 


412,300 


239,100 


46 

3,312 

28 

36,360 

941 


$710,450 


1,361,850 




159,900 


326,300 


629, 400 


1,115,600 








165,134 

2,800 

310 

7,905 


88,560 


303, 317 


557, 011 


Apparatus, vessel fisheries: 


2,800 












310 












7,905 






30 


360 






30 


360 






275 

21,301 

39,464 

23,690 

14 

133,900 

20, 100 

1,000 

9 

7 

5,848 

9 

2,560,547 






275 


Apparatus, shore fisheries: 


82 

126 

187 

18 

50 

15 

1 

6 

10 


44 
28 
42 
14 
21 
1 


18,115 

7,150 

3,300 

7 

30,850 
1,500 






cl26 

dl54 

el43 

32 

85 

16 

1 

6 

10 


39,416 








46, 614 




914 


75,835 


102,825 




21 




14 


16,325 


181,075 




21,600 








1,000 












9 












7 




5 


2,870 

3 

1,280,341 






8,718 




12 






17 


12 


Shore and accessory property 




2,842,073 


6,6S2,961 


Total 




3,740,128 




2, 002, 256 




4,577,400 




10,319,784 









a Aggregate length of 2,400 yards. 
& Aggregate length of 300 yards. 
e Aggregate length of 60,452 yards. 



d Aggregate length of 66,150 yards. 
e Aggregate length of 265,056 yards. 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 15 

You will notice that there is an investment in fishing vessels, in 
transporting vessels, in boats, in apparatus, and in shore and acces- 
sory property. The total for 1908 was $10,319,784. A little more 
than $10,000,000 is the total investment of all these corporations in 
Alaska. Of that total investment, $6,682,961 is in shore and acces- 
sory property; in other words, the big cannery buildings, the boilers, 
the engines, ihe machinery, and property of that kind fixed upon the 
shore. 

Now, I say to the committee that that $6,682,961 worth of property 
does not pay a cent of taxes in Alaska nor anywhere else; neither to 
the Territory nor to the United States nor at all. One per cent on 
that sum would be $66,829. In our towns in Alaska the people pay 
from 1 to 2 per cent taxes, yet these great companies escape entirely. 

Mr. Candler. How do they escape ? 

M/\ Wickersham. Congress has not made any law providing for 
taxing them. That property is not in any incorporated town, and 
Congress has provided for the taxation of real estate in Alaska only 
in incorporated towns. None of this property is in an incorporated 
town. 

Mr. Candler, Do they go outside of the incorporated towns in 
order to avoid the taxation ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; they don't do it for that purpose. They 
are simply out at the fishing stations along the coast where there 
are no incorporated towns. It is not intentional on their part in that 
respect at all. 

Now I want to call attention to the character of this investment. 
The fishing vessels are good for about twenty years, probably. The 
transporting vessels the same, and the boats the same. The appa- 
ratus, the seines, the guns, and the harpoons, the gill nets, and so 
forth, I suppose, are good for five years. The traps, which are 
included in this apparatus, are probably good for ten years. 

Mr. Reynolds. What is the rate of growth of this industry ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, it has been, I think, about 10 per cent; 
maybe 20 per cent. But for the last five or six years it has been 
growing quite rapidly. 

Mr. Candler. In 1908 it increased $1,103,756 over 1907. 

Mr. Wickersham. On page 9 of the report, under the head of 
"Products," it says that the total quantity of products was 
217,813,415 pounds, valued at $11,847,443, a gain of 33,455,114 
pounds and $1,687,260 over 1907. 1'hat shows the rate of growth. 

I want to call your attention to the character of the investment 
for the purpose of showing to you that that investment does not 
have to be replaced every year. It is certainly good for ten years. 
The next statement under the heading of "Products" will show 
you how much they get per annum, and the purpose is to show you 
that they take out of Alaska more than 100 per cent of their invest- 
ment every year. I don't say that they make a profit of more than 
100 per cent, because the figures are not here upon which I can 
predicate with absolute safety the amount of their profits. But 
the sum total of the product every year largely exceeds the whole of 
the investment. 

Mr. Reynolds. Where do these companies mainly have their head- 
quarters ? 

48684—10 2 



16 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 



Mr. Wickersham. San Francisco, Astoria, and Seattle, I think. 
Is that not right, Mr. Browne 1 
Mr. Browne. I think so. 



Products of Alaska fisheries in 1908. 



Products. 


Southeast Alaska. 


Central Alaska. 


Western Alaska. 


Pounds. J Value. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Black cod: 


21,082 
20, 250 

12, 000 
10,667 


$840 
489 

600 
225 










Salted 










Cod: 










Salted 


5, 358, 399 

200 

21, 800 


$131,953 

7 

1,962 












Tongues, salted 


300 

2,820 

27, 000 

200 

7,500 

4, 559, 427 
958, 360 
144,219 

753, 750 
1,311,200 


28 

113 

700 

10 

225 

144, 419 

25, 194 

4,929 

5,020 
17,650 






Eulachon: 






Salted 






























Halibut: 


30,000 


1,200 












Fletcbed 










Herring: 


10, 000 

22, 400 
2,700 


300 
680 
108 






Salted 






Pollock 






Redflsh or black bass: 


11,400 
7,650 

17,500 
600 

18,000 

8,000 

798,289 

42,500 

33,887 

110,737 

5,245 

19,345 

3,420,093 

12,614,280 

41,484,660 

174,265 

13,122,025 

1,290,300 

159,840 
32, 940 
608,310 


570 
230 

875 
36 

180 

60 

46, 858 

340 

813 

1,063 

126 

564 

194, 213 

452, 678 

1,589,412 

10,356 

874, 475 

62,451 

4,898 

707 

17,191 


6,500 325 












Rock cod: 


12,000 ! 480 












Salmon: 
Fresh— 


5,000 


150 






















16,000 


480 






Frozen- 
































Canned — 


808,010 46,172 


589,820 

2,681,630 

1,458,380 

1,037,680 

76,104,770 


$33, 704 




101,519 




2,146,270 

449, 120 

26,397,490 

299, 400 

27,000 


85,673 

27,040 

1,720,857 

15,360 

750 


58,294 

62,471 

4,928,919 






Mild-cured — 




Pickled— 


















25,110 

162,000 

7,547,310 


744 




1,620 
653,400 


480 
19,480 


6,333 




38,880 
27,733 


1,389 
416 


241,405 


Dry-salted — 






28, 500 
12,000 


285 
1,000 






Smoked — 












100 


12 








36,000 
181,450 


3,000 
3,155 






Salmon bellies, salted: 


36, 100 

111,150 

2,260,^25 


380 

699 

27, 660 














38,000 


480 








45, 600 
60, 000 


720 




33,250 
15 

1,504 


386 
3 
66 


1,691,000 


24, 770 


1,080 






Smelt 











LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 
Products of Alaska fisheries in 1908 — Continued. 



17 



Products. 


Southeast Alaska. 


Central Alaska. 


Western Alaska. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Trout: 

Dolly Varden— 


39,200 
8,000 
8,000 

2,900 

30, 681 

50 

1,496,000 

374,000 

1,066,400 

819, 000 

204,750 

1,232,850 

6,000 

9,000 

743 

67 

1,495 


$1,340 
180 
480 

116 

982 

3 

24,000 
6,000 
16, 126 

21,600 

m 5, 400 

49,036 

300 

475 

3,730 
119 

5,411 


13,000 


$650 




















Steelhead— 




















Whiteflsh 










Fertilizer: 




















Whale 










Oil: 










Salmon 










Whale 










Clams 


2,666 
17,400 

252 
253 

1,637 
145 

804 


50 
2,300 

1,332 
300 

5,982 
6,300 

2,680 






Crabs 






Aquatic furs and skins: 


285 
3,644 

200 
15 

89,784 
14,796 


$1,399 
5,838 




Otter- 


667 




750 


Seal— 

Fur 


1,992 

4,620 

3 

1,000 

10, 209 

810 


8,350 

• 945 

3 

35 

2,259 

203 


448, 920 
2,405 












































Total 


89, 635, 468 


3, 636, 642 


38,289,750 


2,105,741 


89,821,024 


5, 895, 168 





LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 
Products of Alaska fisheries in 1908 — Continued. 



Products. 



Arctic Alaska. 



Pounds. Value 



Total. 



Pounds. Value 



Black cod: 

Fresh 

Salted 

Cod: 

Fresh 

Salted 

Smoked 

Tongues, salted 

Eulachon: 

Fresh 

Salted 

Smoked 

Flounders, or sole 

Halibut: 

Fresh 

Frozen 

Fletched 

Herring: 

Fresh 

Salted 

Pollock 

Redfish or black bass: 

Fresh 

Frozen 

Rock cod: 

Fresh 

Frozen 

Salmon: 
Fresh— 

Coho, or silver 

Humpback, or pink. 

King, or spring..... 

Red, orsockeye 

Frozen — 

Coho, or silver 

Dog, or chum 

King, or spring 

Red, or sockeye 

Canned — 

Coho, or silver 

Dog, or chum 

Humpback, or pink. 

King, or spring 

Red, or sockeye 

Mild-cured — 

King, or spring 

Pickled— 

Coho, or silver 

Dog, or chum 

Humpback, or pink. 

King, or spring 

Red, orsockeye 

Dry-salted — 

Dog, or chum 

Red, or sockeye 

Smoked — 

Coho, or silver 

Dog, or chum 

Red , or sockeye 

Salmon bellies, salted: 

Coho, or silver 

Dog, or chum 

Humpback, or pink 

King, or spring 

Red, or sockeye 

Salmon eggs 

Smelt 

Trout: 

Dolly Varden — 

Fresh 

Frozen 

Rainbow 

Steelhead — 

Fresh 

Frozen 

Whitefish 



21, 082 
20, 250 

12, 000 

5, 369, 066 

200 

22, 100 

2,820 

27, 000 

200 

7,500 

4, 589, 427 
958,360 
144,219 

763, 750 

1, 333, 600 

2,700 

17, 900 
7,650 

29, 500 
600 



23, 000 
■ 8,000 
798, 289 

58, 500 

33, 887 

110,737 

5,245 

19, 345 

4, 817, 923 
15,295,910 
45,089,310 

1,661,065 
115,624,285 

1,589,700 

186,840 

32,940 

633, 420 

163, 620 

8,239,590 

27,733 
28,500 

12, 000 

100 

36, 000 

217,550 

111,150 

2,298,325 

45, 600 

1,784,250 

15 

1,504 



52, 200 
8,000 
8,000 

2,900 

30, 681 

50 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 
Products >of Alaska fisheries in 1 908— Continued. 



19 



Products. 


Arctic Alaska. 


Total. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Fertilizer: 






1,496,000 

374,000 

1,066,400 

a819,000 

b 204, 750 

c 1,232, 850 

<*8,000 

« 26, 400 

/ 1,280 
g 3, 964 

ft 3, 332 
U60 

;' 92, 580 

* 19, 416 

13,745 

1,000 

63,640 

810 


$24,000 
6,000 








Whale 






16,126 


Oil: 






21,600 








5,400 
49,036 


Whale 












350 








2.775 


Aquatic furs and skins: 






6,461 
6,257 

12, 060 








Otter- 






Sea 






7,050 
459,950 


Seal- 
Fur 












3,350 
9,393 




13,742 


89. 390 




35 




53,431 


200, 502 


202,761 
203 












Total 


67, 173 


209,892 


217,813,415 


11,847,443 





a Represents 109,200 gallons. 
b Represents 27,300 gallons. 
c Represents 164,380 gallons. 
d Represents 850 bushels. 



« Represents 8,800 crabs. 
/Represents 1,280 skins. 
g Represents 31,712 skins, 
ft Represents 1,333 skins. 



f Represents 32 skins. 
;' Represents 15,430 skins. 
* Represents 6,472 skins. 



Mr. Wickersham. Now, under the head of "Products," on pages 
9, 10, 11, and 12, you will see that the abstract is divided into four 
parts, that relating to southeastern, central, western, and arctic 
Alaska. The last column on pages 11 and 12 gives the sum total. 
It gives the number of pounds of fish taken and the value of the fish; 
and in the last column on page 12 you will find the sum total of the 
fish taken and the value thereof. In other words, in 1908 the sum 
total of all the fish taken amounted to 217,813,415 pounds, the value 
being $11,847,443; or more, if you will notice, considerably, than the 
total investment in all of the boats, shore property, and everything 
they own in the Territory. 

I am not prepared, gentlemen of the committee, to say what the 
profits of this enormous business are. I do know this, that, speaking 
in a general way, they are large corporations with large capital stock; 
and, judging from what they say their investment is and what the 
amount of their bonded indebtedness is, I would say that they have 
generally capitalized the wind and the water and the fish in the sea, 
because there is nothing else in this statement which would justify 
a capitalization which I know to exist upon all of these companies. 
They haven't any property — in Alaska at least — and I don't know 
of any that they have in the world, which justifies the enormous 
aggregation of capitalization upon which they claim a necessity to 
make a profit. 

Mr. Good. I notice your bill, Judge, does not make any provision 
for filing reports. 

Mr. Wickersham. No, it does not. 

Mr. Good. By companies or individuals taking fish out of these 
waters. So wouldn't it be a good plan to compel reports stating in 



20 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 



detail the revenues and the expenditures, so that the Government 
would have some basis upon which to act in fixing a tax or any other 
law protecting the fisheries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, it would, but I have not touched upon that, 
for the reason that I anticipated a good deal of objection to the 
publicity feature of it. They will undoubtedly object to making 
their business public. But it ought certainly to be done. 

Mr. Langham. Would not the corporation tax-law compel them to 
give that information ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, yes, to some extent it would. 

Now, I want to call your attention to what is not in this Bureau of 
Fisheries report. The canneries are obliged to pay a license tax. 
But there isn't anything in this report about that license tax. There 
isn't anything in this report made by the Government by which you 
can tell whether the Alaska Packers' Association has paid its tax for 
the year 1908, and if so, how much, or whether they have paid it all 
or not. I think the Government Bureau of Fisheries ought to make 
their reports complete and perfect. They could do so, or at least 
they could make them much more complete, because those tax 
reports all have to be made by the companies to the clerk of the 
district court in the one or the other of the four divisions of Alaska; 
and the clerk has to make returns thereof to the Attorney-General, 
so that that information is undoubtedly at this moment in the office 
of the Attorney-General, and much of it could be obtained. It would 
help this committee very much, Mr. Chairman, to secure it, and I 
should like to ask the committee to apply to the Attorney-General 
for a detailed statement of such information as he has in his possession 
in respect to the amount of taxes that these canneries have paid 
and the amount of rebates granted as fish taxes in Alaska for, say, 
the last two years, 1908 and 1909. That ought to be readily obtained 
and would help the committee very materially. 

Mr. Reynolds. Is that the only tax they pay ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Now, we have gotten far enough along so that we can begin to 
see something about what the canneries do pay, and if the com- 
mittee will bear with me a moment I will call attention to some of 
the details. 



Output of salmon from the canneries in 1908, by species and size of cans. 



Products. 


Southeast Alaska. 


Central Alaska. 


Western Alaska. 


Total. 


Cases. 


Value. 


Cases. 


Value. 


Cases. 


Value. 


Cases. 


Value. 


King, or spring: 


125 
2,427 


S425 
9,931 










125 
23,667 


$425 


1-pound tall 


6,416 


$27, 040 


14, 824 


$62, 471 


99,442 


Total 


2,552 


10,356 


6,416 


27, 040 


14,824 


62,471 


23, 792 


99, 867 






Red, or sockeye: 

J-pound flat 


21,817 
26, 950 
149,599 


68, 083 
138, 120 
668, 272 










21,817 

26, 950 

1,613,911 


68,083 










138, 120 


1-pound tall 


377, 101 


1,720,857 


1,087,211 


4, 928, 919 


7,318,048 


Total 


198,366 


874,475 


377, 101 


1,720,857 


1,087,211 


4, 928, 919 


1,662,678 


7,524,251 






Grand total 


1,022,723 


3,121,134 


425,721 


1,879,742 


1,169,604 


5, 184, 907 


"2,618,048 


10, 185, 783 



o Reduced to a common basis of cases containing 48 1-pound cans the pack is 2,606,972 cases. 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 21 

They each pay on canned salmon 4 cents per case if they pay any- 
thing. If you will turn to the fisheries report for 1908, page 22, you 
will find a statement of the output of salmon from the canneries in 
1908, and you will ascertain in the right-hand column, but one, that 
the whole total of cases is 2,606,972 cases, which was the pack in 
1908. They pay 4 cents a case, or ought to pay that, and if they did pay 
it it would amount to $104,278.88. But if they paid it by affidavit, I 
don't know how much it would amount to, ana I have no informa- 
tion by which I can say to the committee at this time how much of 
that $104,278.88 was paid in cash. It is provided that that money 
shall be paid in to the clerk of the court, and that it shall be used for 
the care of the insane, the schools, and road building in Alaska. I 
am very anxious to know just how much it is. 

They also pay on pickled salmon 10 cents per barrel; salt salmon 
in bulk, 5 cents per 100 pounds; fish oil, 10 cents per barrel; and 
fertilizer, 20 cents per ton. I have figured out the amount on the 
fertilizer. That will be shown at the bottom of page 1 1 of the report. 
Fertilizer, 1,936,000 pounds, of the value of $46,126; in other words, 
there were 1,468 tons, at 20 cents per ton, which would be something 
like $290 that they ought to have paid. 

I have several petitions and protests against the use of food fishes 
in Alaska for fertilizer purposes. I don't know how far that has 
gone, but the objection is made that a large amount of salmon and 
other food fishes are used for fertilizing purposes. I think that is in 
violation of the statute, and I think if there was any inspection by 
the Government that very much of that would be stopped. 

As to fish oil, th«re were 2,246,000 pounds, at a value of about 
$76,036. There are 50 pounds in a barrel; therefore 44,920 barrels, 
at 10 cents a barrel, equals $4,492 — a very small sum, since the same 
weight of humpback salmon canned is worth $27,500. In the bill 
that I have prepared I have undertaken to extend the taxation upon 
other property in Alaska in this way : I have made it to cover all the 
salmon or other food fish canned in 1 -pound cans, 5 cents per case of 
48 cans. If that is too much it can be cut down. Then I have pro- 
vided : For all salmon or halibut or other food fish caught in Alaskan 
waters and carried out of the Territory of Alaska fresh, frozen, mild 
cured, pickled, dry salted, smoked or in any other condition, 10 
cents per 100 pounds; for each fishing boat propelled with oars or 
sails, $1. Near the bottom of page 8 of this report it shows that 
there are 2,856 fishing boats, with a value of $557,000, showing that 
they are worth nearly $200 apiece. I have only suggested to tax 
them $1; that ought to be double.d. 

I say to this committee that in all the incorporated towns in Alaska 
we pay a tax of from 1 to 2 per cent upon the assessed value of our 

Property . We would like to have these people pay a little something, 
don't want to put more than 1 per cent tax upon any of their prop- 
erty, but they ought to pay at least one-half as much as the people 
of Alaska pay to maintain the Government, to help build the roads, 
to take care of the insane, and to do all the necessary work of devel- 
oping the country. They don't do anything. They are grabbing the 
greatest crop in the world out of that Territory, and they are not con- 
tributing their share of taxes. I want them to do something more. 
I want them to help develop the Territory. 



22 LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Candler. This report shows that the total investment in fish- 
eries was $10,319/784 in 1908, and it shows that the total product 
taken out in 1908 was worth $11,847,443. They have taken out over 
a million dollars above the total amount invested in a single year. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and that investment is good for ten years. 
It does not have to be replaced every year. They will take out 
$100,000,000 in ten years upon that $10,000,000 investment. 

Mr. Good. And a $6,000,000 investment in the canneries on the 
shore ought to be good for a good deal more than ten or twenty years ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, yes; it is. 

Now, I have provided in my bill : 

For each launch, tug, steamer, or sailing vessel used in the fishing trade in Alaskan 
waters, or in transporting fishermen, employees, supplies, or fish in the waters of 
Alaska, or to and from Alaska, $1 per gross ton capacity. 

They don't pay anything on that class of property now. 
Then I have a proviso that I certainly want to call to the attention 
of the committee, as follows [reads]: 

Provided further , That any such vessel owned or used by any bona fide resident of 
Alaska exclusively in the Alaska fishing trade shall only pay 50 cents per gross ton 
capacity. 

I want, if I can, to induce this committee, if it should pass this law 
at all, to give the resident fishermen in Alaska the best of it. I want 
them to reduce the taxation 50 per cent in favor of the resident 
fishermen in Alaska. I want to tax those people who reside in San 
Francisco, Astoria, Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle, 50 per cent more 
than we do the local fishermen, so as to encourage the building up of 
the local fishermen, and so that they will be induced to come there and 
build their homes there and help us to maintain the country; to build 
schools, churches, towns, and villages, and populate Alaska. 

Then I say in my bill : 

For each stake trap, floating trap, fish wheel, or other mechanical device for catching 
food fish in the tidal waters of Alaska, or in any of the streams emptying into Bristol 
Bay or the Pacific Ocean waters, $100. 

They do not pay anything upon those now, and I have some 
petitions and protests against the fish traps to which I want to call 
the attention of the committee later. 

Then it is further provided in the bill: "For each haul seine, purse 
seine, or gill net, 1 cent per yard." The seines are shown in the 
report of 1908 to amount to 401,588 yards, and at 1 cent per yard 
the amount of taxes upon them would be $4,015. The value of the 
seines, as given in this report, is $131,965. 

Mr. Draper. It is now 4 minutes of 12, and we shall be obliged to 
adjourn. 

Mr. Wickersham. This bill covers a matter of grave importance, 
and I am not through with my statement, and I hope the committee 
will see its way clear to take up the hearing again; and that Mr. 
Browne may be heard also. I did not intend to take up so much 
time. 

Mr. Browne. I think that some one from the Department of 
Commerce and Labor will want to be heard. I understand that 
they do. 



LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES, ETC., IN ALASKA. 23 

Mr. Wickersham. But we can not go on to-day. 

Mr. Candler. In relation to the question that the Judge raised 
a while ago as to the amount of the taxes that have been paid, I 
move that a letter be written to the Department of Justice asking 
for that information, so that we may be able to determine what 
amount of taxes has been paid. 

The motion was agreed to. 

(Adjourned at 12 o'clock, noon.) 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 



Committee on Territories, 

Monday, April 25, 1910. 

The committee was called to order at 10.40 a. m., Hon. Edward L. 
Hamilton (chairman) presidingT 

The Chairman. The committee will take up for consideration this 
morning the bill H. R. 22579, upon which Judge Wickersham was 
being heard, I think, upon the day when this bill was being last con- 
sidered. 

Do you desire to proceed this morning, Judge ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The gentlemen from the Fisheries Bureau are 
here this morning, and perhaps they should be heard first. 

The Chairman. Yes; I understand that Doctor Evermann is here. 
Are you ready to proceed, Doctor Evermann ? 

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN, ASSISTANT IN 
CHARGE OF DIVISION OF INQUIRY RESPECTING FOOD FISHES, 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Doctor Evermann. I am ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman, if you 
desire. 

The Chairman. Have you examined this bill, Doctor? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have read it. 

The Chairman. Speaking for myself, Doctor Evermann, I desire 
to say that on the day upon which this bill was under consideration 
before, I was unfortunately prevented from attending the meeting of 
the committee, but have been trying to read Judge Wickersham's 
statement this morning, although I have not quite finished it. Per- 
haps I am hardly in a position to make inquiries of you as intel- 
ligently as I would be if I had had more opportunity for investigation. 
I will therefore ask you to proceed, Doctor, in your own way. 

Doctor Evermann. I don't know just what you would like to 
ascertain from the Bureau of Fisheries. 

The Chairman. I suppose you know, in a general way, the purpose 
and the scope of this bill ? 

Doctor Evermann. When this bill was presented it was referred to 
the Commissioner of Fisheries for an opinion. I understand that the 
commissioner has addressed a letter to you upon that subject. 

The Chairman. Yes; and unless you would prefer to read it in 
your remarks, I will lay it before the committee at this juncture. 
Pursuant to the custom of the committee, I wrote the Secretary of 



2 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

Commerce and Labor in relation to this bill, and received, under 
date of March 18, 1910, this reply [reads]: 

Department op Commerce and Labor, 

Office op the Secretary, 

Washington, March 18, 1910. 
Chairman Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 9, transmitting 
copy of H. R. 22579, "Making additional and amendatory provisions for civil govern- 
ment in the Territory of Alaska and for other purposes, " and asking information and 
suggestions on that part of the bill which relates to fisheries. 

The increase of tax on canned salmon from 4 to 5 cents per case is regarded as 
not unreasonable, but the increases on most of the minor products are believed to 
be excessive. There is little profit at present in the pickled-salmon industry, and 
the income from taxes on these minor products of the fisheries will be insignificant 
and will curtail the pack and in some cases prohibit it. 

The taxes on boats and other vessels seem excessive. The tax of $100, aimed at 
large stationary traps, seems proper, but the inclusive phrase "or other mechanical 
device" (p. 2, lines 18 and 19) should preferably be "or other stationary device." 

In line 19, page 2, "catching food fish" should be changed to "commercial fishing," 
in order to exempt gear which may be used by the Government in investigations. 

The repeal of the tax-exemption system contained in section 2 of the 1906 law is not 
considered advisable at this time. This system encourages the packers to undertake 
salmon culture. Its repeal would probably mean more or less curtailment of the 
operations of these private hatcheries. With respect to the relation of the amount 
of the exemption, which is the equivalent of 40 cents per thousand fry under the exist- 
ing law, to the cost of producing the fry, this cost varies from year to year and at dif- 
ferent places. It ranges in the Government's operations from 26 to 41 cents, and is 
usually from 30 to 40 cents. This includes none of the cost of the original plant for 
hatching, but only annual maintenance. Under an increased tax on canned salmon 
the fry equivalent might be increased somewhat. 

When a hearing is held on this bill it is requested that this department be 
represented. 

Respectfully, Charles Nagel, Secretary. 

Doctor Evermann. Now, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as it relates to 
the fisheries, is as that letter states, in the main, satisfactory to the 
Bureau of Fisheries. There are only a few matters of minor import- 
ance, a few details, which would seem to be worth especial considera- 
tion. 

The present tax on canned salmon is 4 cents per case. The bill 
provides for a tax of 5 cents, and I would say that the bureau has no 
objection to that increase. The tax on fish oil, under this bill, is 
placed at 10 cents per 100 pounds. Under the old law it is 10 cents 
per barrel. That is a considerable increase. 

The Chairman. How much does a barrel weigh ? 

Doctor Evermann. A barrel would be about 350 to 375 pounds; 
about 50 gallons. And that would be a considerable increase on 
the fish oil. I don't know that the commission would have any ob- 
jection to that change, however. For fertilizer the increase is from 
20 cents per ton to 50 cents per ton. There is one large fertilizer 
plant in southeastern Alaska, the Carl Spuhn establishment at Killis- 
noo. He uses various kinds of rough fish, the best fish that he uses 
perhaps being the herring, and in time doubtless that will be aban- 
doned, because the herring is becoming much more valuable for other 
purposes. 

The Chairman. Doctor, to what domain of the animal kingdom 
does a fish belong % By reference to line 3 of page 2 of the bill you 
will see there the expression: "Fertilizer from fish or other sea ani- 
mal." Is fish an animal % 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 3 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; a fish is an animal, but I suppose that 
line intends to cover the use of sharks, or whales, or any other animal 
of that character. 

The Chairman. Then you regard a whale as an animal ? 

Doctor Evermann. A whale is a mammal, and, of course, an ani- 
mal. That wording in the bill is entirely proper, I should say. 

The Chairman. But all fish are classed scientifically as animals, 
are they? 

Doctor Evermann. All fishes are animals. 

Now the bill reads: 

For all salmon or halibut or other food-fish caught in Alaskan waters and carried 
out of the Territory of Alaska fresh frozen, mild cured 

Mr. Wickersham. There ought to be a comma after the word 
"fresh." 

Doctor Evermann (continuing) : 

Mild cured, pickled, dry salted, smoked, or in any other condition, ten cents per 
one hundred pounds. 

Under the present law there is a tax of 10 cents per barrel of 200 
pounds on pickled fish. There is a tax of 5 cents per 100 pounds on 
dry salted fish, and there is no tax on fresh, frozen, mild-cured, or 
smoked fish. The amounts of those kinds of fish that are marketed 
are not considerable, and it is more than likely that a tax upon those 
products would drive people out of that business. They are small 
concerns with little capital, and a tax perhaps would be prohibitive. 

Mr. McKinney. Doctor, I didn't quite understand just what you 
said in regard to fertilizer fish. That is provided for here at 50 cents 
per ton. Did you say that the tax heretofore was 20 cents a ton ? 

Doctor Evermann. The tax now is 20 cents per ton, while this pro- 
vides a tax of 50 cents per ton. I am not in a position to say whether 
that is too large an increase or not. At first blush I would be disposed 
to say that it is reasonable. 

Those are all of the points that I desire to make regarding the taxes 
on the product. There are, as I understand it, now no taxes and no 
licenses on vessels or boats. 

The Chairman. Before you pass to that, so that those of us who are 
not familiar with the fishing industry may be informed, I wish you 
would state what the term "mild cured" means. 

Doctor Evermann. Taking up these different products as they 
come here, I would say that in recent years there has been developed 
a considerable business in the production and shipping of fresh fish 
from Alaska, though ordinarily most of the fish that are shipped fresh 
are frozen first; and the market is abroad. That has developed into 
a very large industry. They freeze the white-meated chinook salmon, 
for instance, but the sockeye, or red salmon, is ordinarily canned. 

The Chairman. How far do they ship those frozen fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. Practically all over the world. I understood 
that the chief market is in Germany. 

Mr. Wickersham. Of all the mild-cured fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. For the frozen fish; also for the mild-cured 
fish, as well as those shipped frozen. 

The Chairman. What does that mean, "mild-cured?" 

Doctor Evermann. Simply salted slightly, sufficient to keep it, and 
then shipped in that condition. The pickled fish is put in brine, 



4 GOVERNMENT FOE ALASKA. 

and, ordinarily, the part of the fish that is put up in that way is what 
is called "salmon bellies," they being the bellies usually of the cheaper 
grade of salmon, particularly the humpback. That is put up in kits 
of how many pounds, Mr. Marsh ? 

Mr. Marsh. I think about 75 pounds. 

Doctor Evermann. Fifty to 75 pounds; and in barrels, of course. 
There is considerable demand for that article, for it is a very excellent 
food. 

Mr. Wickersham. What quantity of salmon bellies is put up in 
the fisheries of Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. With your permission I would like to leave all 
statistical matters to Mr. Marsh, who can give you all of that informa- 
tion much better than I can. 

The Chairman. The next item of fish in the bill is what is called 
the "dry salted." 

Doctor Evermann. The tax on that is 5 cents per hundred pounds. 
I do not know the amount, but it is not considerable. The smoked 
fish is not considerable, either. 

The Chairman. Now, there is the general phrase, "or in any other 
condition." Is there fish in practically any other condition? 

Doctor Evermann. I don't know of any other condition. 

Now, the bureau is not in a position to advise definitely regarding 
the tax, if any, that should be laid upon the various vessels that 
are used in the fisheries. That can be worked out, perhaps, best by 
conference with the people who are interested in the vessels. The 
bureau would have an opinion, however, regarding the gear used in 
the fisheries; that is, the nets, the seines, and so on. The bill says: 

For each stake trap, floating trap, fish wheel, or other mechanical device for catch- 
ing food fish in the tidal waters of Alaska, or in any of the streams emptying into 
Bristol Bay or the Pacific Ocean waters, one hundred dollars. 

Mr. Wickersham. Doctor, I am going to ask the committee to 
strike that clause out and to abolish fish traps entirely. What do 
you think of that ? 

Doctor Evermann. I do not believe it would be wise to abolish 
the fish traps entirely. There are places in Alaska where other 
methods of catching fish can not be so well employed. 

Mr. Wickersham. Whereabouts ? 

Doctor Evermann. The growth of the use of pound nets, however, 
has been very rapid, and in time, I imagine, it will need some regu- 
lation. But in places where there are no hauling shores and where 
a seine can not be hauled ashore and where there is a great tide traps 
seem to be the most feasible means that may be employed. At the 
mouths of some of the rivers gill-net fishing can be employed, but in 
southeastern Alaska not to advantage. There are not seine-hauling 
shores everywhere throughout Alaska. Take, for instance, the vicin- 
ity of Ketchikan or Yes Bay, there are some places where it is difficult 
to operate seines successfully; and it is the same at Klawak. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you know, Doctor, that all of the fishermen's 
unions, not only of Alaska, but all the way down the coast, have 
petitioned for the abolition of traps ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. Don't you know that Dr. David Starr Jordan 
recommended the abolishment of the trap system of fishing ? 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 5 

Doctor Evermann. I think that Mr. Rosenberg, who was the repre- 
sentative of the fishermen, did not fully express Doctor Jordan's views. 
I was with Doctor Jordan on Puget Sound in 1908, and we there con- 
sidered the trap question as relating to the fisheries in the State of 
Washington side of Puget Sound, and the gill nets in the Fraser River 
in British Columbia, and he was decidedly of the opinion that the 
abolition of the trap nets- or pound nets on the State of Washington 
side of the Fraser River would not be feasible; that it would prac- 
tically put the American fishermen out of business. In British 
Columbia they use gill nets on the Fraser River, of course. That is 
all right; they can do that, because the water of the Fraser River is 
more or less milky, being glacial water. But down on the American 
side gill nets can not be used, and trap nets are essential. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is that the only reason why Doctor Jordan 
favors the trap nets there ? 

Doctor Evermann. I don't think that is the onlv reason. The 
only purpose of any fishing apparatus is to catch fish, and it is not 
fair to discriminate against one method or one piece of apparatus in 
favor of another if each is an honest method and is not unduly destruc- 
tive. It is true that pound nets catch large numbers of fish, but that 
is what you want. They want to catch fish. 

Now, the salmon that come to the fishing grounds are the catchable 
fish; that is to say, they are not overgrown salmon, or young salmon, 
but they all are salmon which are of the proper class to be caught. 
The young fish do not run. So you could not say that a pound net is 
destructive because it catches immature salmon, because it does not, 
any more than the gill net, for the reason that the immature fish do 
not run. 

The Chairman. Will you please state to the committee, in a general 
way, what a trap is ? 

Doctor Evermann. A trap is a netting or webbing arranged in this 
form : They run out from the shore a long line of webbing which is set 
vertically, of course, and held in place by means of stakes driven 

Mr. Wickersham. Piles? 

Doctor Evermann. Timbers, yes. Now, then, at the end of 
that 

Mr. Wickersham. Those timbers are driven into the ground by 
pile drivers, are they not ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. A pound net is an expensive piece of 
apparatus. At the end of this long line of webbing, which is called 
the leader, is the trap. 

The Chairman. Does it extend upstream? 

Doctor Evermann. They are not in the streams, but they are out 
in the canals, in the channels, and in the sounds. 

Mr. Wickersham. In the salt water? 

Doctor Evermann. They are always in the salt water; never in 
fresh water. 

The Chairman. Now, here is a stream flowing into the ocean. 
From what point with reference to the banks of that stream would 
you start your trap ? 

Doctor Evermann. With reference to the rivers in Alaska, or the 
Fraser River in British Columbia (and the same statement will 
apply, I think, to all of them) the trap net will be somewhere in the 
salt water off the mouth of the river. The leader is ordinarily 



6 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

run out at right angles to the shore, because the fish will follow 
along the shore. Now, when the fish come to the leader they turn 
out into the deeper water, and there they go into the trap, which 
is at the end, and consists usually of three essential parts. Two 
of the parts are called the heart, which has two great wings that go 
out like the two halves of a heart, and where the two halves come 
together there is the pound net proper, or the crib, into which the 
fish get, and where they are retained until they are taken out. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by "pound nets?" 

Doctor Evermann. The whole thing is called a pound net. 

The Chairman. Because it impounds the fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. They are the same as the pound nets 
that are used on the Great Lakes — Lake Huron and Lake Erie. 

The Chairman. Now, Doctor, in order to understand salmon fishing 
better, perhaps it might be well, if it does not already appear in the 
hearings in relation to this bill, to give us some information regarding 
the habits of the Pacific coast salmon. Will you do that in a general 
way ? I understand that the salmon remain in the headwaters of the 
stream after they are hatched until they become what are known to 
fishermen as fingerlings. They then make their way down the stream 
and disappear into the ocean, and are not accounted for by scientific 
knowledge after that until they reappear at maturity and are ready 
for spawning. They then return m schools, and by an unerring 
instinct, as I remember — I think you testified before this committee 
four or five years ago upon this subject — they find their way to the 
parent stream. They then make their way up the parent stream, 
taking no food after they leave the ocean, to the spawning ground, 
and after spawning both the male and the female die. Is that, in a 
general way, a statement of their habits ? 

Doctor Evermann. That is a very good statement of the essential 
facts in regard to the salmon of the west coast. All west-coast species 
have essentially the same habits. 

The Chairman. So that it amounts to this, that each river is a sort 
of pen in which the fish are produced, and if the fish are not permitted 
to deposit the spawn, then in the course of time that river would be 
fished out, because the return of the fish to the parent stream for 
propagation would be stopped. Therefore it becomes essential, I 
take it, that the supply of fry should be renewed from time to time. 

Doctor Evermann. It is no doubt true that the salmon that are 
spawned in any particular stream, when they get down to salt water, 
and when they are some distance from the mouth of that stream and 
they wish to return to fresh water for spawning purposes, not all of 
those fish that were hatched in any particular stream return to that 
stream, but it is very likely that a considerable portion and perhaps 
the large majority of those hatched in any particular stream will find 
their way back to that stream, perhaps not because of any marvelous 
geographic instinct, but because when they are seeking fresh water 
that is the stream that is nearest at hand. 

The Chairman. That is a phase of the situation that I think was 
not developed in your statement of some years ago. 

Doctor Evermann. Personally I have never been an unqualified 
adherent to the "parent stream" theory, although I have always been 
ready to admit that the majority of the fish hatched in any particular 
stream are more apt to get back into that stream than into any other. 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 7 

Mr. Wickersham. What proof have you that any of them ever get 
back ? 

Doctor Evermann. There is no absolutely positive proof that any 
individual salmon ever got back. But there is this, which is, I think, 
conclusive proof, and satisfactory proof: The salmon fisheries in the 
Sacramento River in California were important in the early days, 
but through mining and agriculture and lumbering and logging 
operations along the Sacramento River, practically all of the salmon 
spawning beds of that stream were destroyed, or were covered up, 
some becoming in fact dry land, as you might say. Fish-culture 
operations were begun there several years ago by the Bureau of 
Fisheries, and during the past seven years the run of salmon in the 
Sacramento River has been greater than it ever was before salmon 
fishing on a large scale developed there. Now, we think we are 
justified in believing that the large runs of salmon we now have in the 
Sacramento River are due to artificial propagation of salmon at the 
headwaters of the Sacramento River. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where are the propagating stations ? 

Doctor Evermann. At Baird and Battle Creek. 

Mr. Wickersham. How far above the mouth of the river ? 

Doctor Evermann. Oh, a long distance. 

Mr. Wickersham. About how far? 

Doctor Evermann. I should say 150 miles. Ordinarily on large 
streams the hatcheries would have to be well up the stream to get the 
fish 

Mr. Wickersham. Where are they on the streams in Alaska? 

Doctor Evermann. At Yes Bay, at the head of Yes Lake, which is 
a small lake; on Karluk Lake. And upon Kodiak Island, the 
hatchery is at the foot of the stream that flows from the lake. 

Mr. Wickersham. Not over a mile above the mouth of the stream ? 

Doctor Evermann. They are near salt water, yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Are they more than a mile away from salt 
water? That is what I am trying to get at. 

Doctor Evermann. They are not much more than that, sir. But 
all these streams upon which hatcheries in Alaska are located are 
small streams. 

Mr. Marsh. On Yes Lake the hatchery is 3 or 4 miles from salt 
water. 

Mr. Wickersham. But it is at the mouth of the stream that runs 
into the lake. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

The Chairman. Judge Wickersham stated that these fry were 
deposited by the canneries, under the law, in the sea. Is that true? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I did not say that. I said they were turned 
out of the canneries near the mouth of the streams, and went out 
into the sea. 

Doctor Evermann. The salmon hatchery ought to be located near 
the salmon spawning beds, and if those natural spawning beds are a 
thousand miles from the sea, that is where the hatchery ought to be. 
If they are 5 or 10 miles from the sea the hatchery need be no farther 
from the sea. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would like to get back to the salmon-trap 
matter. You stated that Mr. David Starr Jordan does not recom- 
mend to abolish them. I understood you to say that he said that in 

48684—10 3 



8 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

relation to the traps in the State of Washington and those in British 
Columbia just opposite the State of Washington, because it gave the 
trap men over on the Canadian side an advantage over those on our 
side. Is that the reason that he gave for that ? 

Doctor Evermann. That gill-net fishing could not be carried on in 
Puget Sound. 

Mr. Wickersham. And that fact would give the fishermen on the 
Canadian side an advantage over our side ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, in regard to trap fishing in Alaska, he has, 
in a letter to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, in connection 
with a hearing over the Wood River and Nushagak River traps, 
advised that all trap fishing in Alaska be eliminated and abolished. 
Don't you remember that letter? 

Doctor Evermann. I remember the letter, but I don't fully recall 
what he said. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have here a copy of the letter, a printed copy, 
although, of course, I am not sure that it is absolutely correct. It is 
published in a paper called the Coast Seamen's Journal, of date 
January 15, 1908, m which there is contained all the correspondence 
about this abolition of fish traps in Atwood River, Alaska. His letter 
is addressed to Mr. Straus, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and 
is dated December 9, 1907. In that letter — without quoting all of 
it — he says [reads] : 

I believe, also, that the fixed traps or pounds ought to be eliminated from Alaskan 
waters. They involve the automatic destruction of more fish than the rivers can 
stand. As a first step toward a larger end, I should favor the removal of the fixed 
trap from the Nushagak, which is the largest of the Bristol Bay rivers. If the great 
fisheries of Alaska are to be preserved, it is essential that the United States Govern- 
ment should assume control over the streams which constitute the breeding grounds 
of the salmon and see to it that they are free from dangerous obstructions. 

I wanted to call your attention to that because that is part of the 
evidence which I had here to show that fish traps are very destructive. 
Have you ever seen a fish trap emptied ? 

Doctor Evermann. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you seen the fish thrown out of the traps 
and destroyed ? 

Doctor Evermann. Not destroyed; not all of them. I have seen 
some fish destroyed. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you seen fish traps used in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is not a large amount of fish destroyed ? 

Doctor Evermann. A good many sculpins and coarse fish are 
destroyed. 

Mr. Wickersham. Haven't you seen halibut and other food fishes 
thrown out and wasted ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have seen some flounders, and some other 
kinds of fish thrown out, but not many, if any, flounders. 

Mr. Wickersham. If, in a given case, one-half of the fish in a trap 
is practically destroyed and thrown away, would you not consider 
that that was waste ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; that would be a very great waste, indeed. 
But I would not think that that would be the usual result. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is not the usual result, no; but isn't this also 
true, that a great many of these canneries have many traps; and 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 9 

isn't it true that in some parts of the canning season they catch but 
few fish, and that it takes all of the fish to keep the canneries going ? 

Doctor Evermann. The point is this, Judge; the fish which are 
destroyed by the traps are not fish that have commercial value at 
the present time. 

Mr. Wickersham. If you will excuse me, I would like to have you 
answer my question : Is it not true that during a portion of the season 
it is necessary to keep the traps running, all of them, in order to keep 
the cannery going ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; I presume that is true. 

Mr. Wickersham. And then at other times all of these traps are 
filled, and there is a great waste caused by the throwing away of the 
fish, which is due to the fact that they can not can them all. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; and fish are also destroyed by gill nets. 

Mr. Wickersham. Can you say what proportion of all the fish 
caught in Alaskan waters are destroyed ? 

Doctor Evermann. I should" say that a comparatively small pro- 
portion of the food fishes caught in Alaska are destroyed. No 
canning company is going to destroy fish needlessly. If fish are 
destroyed it will simply be because of stress of circumstances, making 
it impossible for them to save them. That happens with the gill nets 
on the Great Lakes, where a storm sometimes prevents the fishermen 
from going out and lifting the gill nets at regular intervals, so that 
they are carried away and drift, so that it may be weeks before they 
are recovered. Of course, all the fish that are caught during that 
season are absolutely lost and I do not see any way of avoiding it 
without prohibiting the use of gill nets. But ordinarily gill-net 
fishing is an honest and a fair method of catching fish, as I believe 
the pound net is an honest and a fair method. But I also believe in 
placing every necessary restriction upon fishing, to the end that 
waste may be prevented. 

Mr. Wickersham. Why is it that all of the fishermen's unions in 
Alaska, and nearly all of the fishermen in Alaska, have signed a 
petition for the abolition of trap fishing, and why has David Starr 
Jordan made a recommendation against it ? 

Doctor Evermann. I think Doctor Jordan feels that every restric- 
tion that is necessary should be placed on trap fishing, and would like 
to see, if you can develop any other method by which fish can be 
caught satisfactorily, the elimination of pound nets. But I doubt if 
Doctor Jordan is ready to urge that now. 

Mr. Wickersham. Don't you think that we can take that letter as 
stating his opinions ? 

Doctor Evermann. I presume so, though I don't know that that 
is an exact copy of his letter. 

Mr. Wickersham. I don't know, either, about that. Haven't you 
those letters in your department ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Will you not please furnish this committee 
copies of them ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. What is the date of that letter? 

Mr. Wickersham. December 9, 1907. 

The Chairman. Doctor, in practice does the trap method catch 
pretty nearly all the fish that are intent on getting up a particular 
stream ? 



10 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

Doctor Evermann. I can easily conceive that a trap might be so 
located, or a sufficient number of traps might be so located, as to 
shut out practically every fish entering a stream. 

The Chairman. I suppose the "purpose of a canning company 
would be, naturally, to intercept as many fish as possible that are 
making for a certain stream ? 

Doctor Evermann. I presume so; yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, about the Alaska hatcheries.. What 
have you to say about the benefit of hatcheries in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. We have no absolute demonstration of the 
value of the hatcheries in Alaska such as we have elsewhere in cer- 
tain other places; for instance, on the Sacramento River, which I 
cited a moment ago. But the results have been so marvelously good 
upon the Sacramento River that we see no reason why they should 
not be good anywhere on the west coast where hatcheries have been 
established and are being maintained. 

Mr. Wickersham. Your judgment is, then, that the hatcheries in 
Alaska would be just as beneficial as they would on the Sacramento 
River in California ? 

Doctor Evermann. I see no reason why a salmon hatchery could 
not be operated in Alaska just as effectively as upon the Sacramento 
River, or upon the Columbia River. 

Mr. Wickersham. How frequently have you been in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have been there several times. I spent 
seven months of one year there, and four months of another year. 

Mr. Wickersham. What parts of Alaska did you visit at that time ? 

Doctor Evermann. I visited every cannery in southeastern Alaska 
in 1903. Doctor Jordan and I were together that year, he as chair- 
man and I as vice-chairman of a special salmon committee appointed 
by the President. We together visited every hatchery and every 
cannery in southeastern Alaska in 1903, and I visited all those on 
Kadiak Island and at Chignik Bay. 

Mr. Wickersham. That was before the larger canneries in southern 
and western Alaska were built? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. In this letter of Doctor Jordan's that I called 
to your attention, that of December 9, 1907, Doctor Jordan says, in 
respect to the hatcheries in Alaska : 

I wish very strongly to second the movement begun by the fishermen's union with 
a view to closing Wood River, in Bristol Bay, entirely to fishing, and with a view 
to closing Nushagak River to all traps and stationary nets. The importance of these 
rivers to the fishing industry of Alaska is treated fully in our report for 1904. T may 
say , however, that these rivers, with two or three others running into the head of Bristol 
Bay, are the greatest salmon streams in the world, carrying an enormous body of 
Alaska red salmon. The value of the fisheries runs some years as high as three or 
four millions of dollars. These streams have been badly overfished, and the output 
has fallen off. It will continue to fall away with great rapidity to the injury of the 
fishermen, the packers, and the people of the United States, to whom these rivers 
belong. In California, and to some extent in southern Alaska, it is possible to make 
good the injury due to overfishing by means of hatcheries, but it is an open question 
whether any hatchery can be made successful at Bristol Bay. The country is a vast, 
swampy, tundra-covered area, very cold in winter and frozen solid during the greater 
portion of the year. It is apparently a mechanical impossibility to make the small 
streams which the hatcheries can use available for such purpose. 

Doctor Evermann. He means the small streams in the vicinity of 
Bristol Bay. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 11 

Doctor Evermann. Since that was written, and since Doctor Jor- 
dan was in Alaska, Mr. Marsh has spent two or more seasons on the 
Wood River and has carefully examined that region with reference 
to the possibilities of the establishment of a hatchery there, and 
Mr. Marsh, with your permission, will report upon that later. 

Mr. Wickersham. How frequently have you been at Karluk? 

Doctor Evermann. I have been at Karluk three or four times. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you know, anything about the output of 
canned salmon at Karluk ? 

Doctor Evermann. If I had charge of the hatchery at Karluk I 
would change the location. I said so at the time, and I am still of 
that opinion. As I have told Mr. Dorr and others of the Alaska 
Packers' Association, I would change it from its present location at 
the mouth of the stream to the head of the stream, up the lake, and 
for two reasons: In the first place, the salmon which they use for 
hatchery purposes now have to.be caught in the lagoon and corralled 
and kept until they are matured and ready to spawn. That water in 
the corral is too warm, and it is quite certain, to my mind, that the 
eggs are not so virile, not such strong, healthy eggs as they would be 
if they were taken from fish that had ascended to the lake. Then, by 
changing the location of the hatchery to the lake instead of at the 
mouth of the outlet of the lake, they would have a better place for 

{)lanting the fry, near the natural spawning beds, rather than in the 
ower portion of the river or elsewhere. But those conditions are 
met well in the other hatcheries of southeastern Alaska. The one at 
Naha is within a stone's throw of the spawning bed. 

The Chairman. How many hatcheries are there in Alaska that 
are run by the Government ? 

Doctor Evermann. Two. 

The Chairman. Where are they located ? 

Doctor Evermann. There is one at Afognak, and one at Yes Bay. 

The Chairman. How many hatcheries are being conducted by 
the canning companies? 

Doctor Evermann. Five. 

The Chairman. Can you state where they are located ? 

Mr. Wickersham. If I may be excused, I will say to the chairman 
that that is all in the hearing that is now published, the hearing of 
April 19. 

The Chairman. Oh, very well; then we needn't go into that. 

Mr. Wickersham. How much was the output of the salmon can- 
neries at Karluk in the heyday of their work ? 

Doctor Evermann. It was very large. 

Mr. Wickersham. Two hundred and fifty thousand cases? 

Doctor Evermann. Very large, indeed. The statistical reports 
of the bureau will give you the figures. 

Mr. Wickersham. But these reports do not give them. Why do 
they not give those figures ? 

Doctor Evermann. The one for 1909 gives 

Mr. Wickersham. None of those reports do. 

Mr. Marsh. Not by companies. 

Mr. Wickersham. Why don't you give those figures, Doctor? 

Doctor Evermann. I don't know just why. The Division of Sta- 
tistics gathers the statistics and puts them in certain form. That is 
not my division, so I can not give the reason. 



12 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA., 

Mr. Wickersham. I have gone through these reports of the Fisheries 
Bureau trying to ascertain the output of these different canneries, 
but nowhere can I get that information. 

Doctor Evermann. There is one reason, I suppose, that holds with 
the companies. A company would regard it as giving private infor- 
mation regarding their private business — just how many fish they 
got from this stream or that stream. The bureau, however, has data 
from the various companies doing a canning business in Alaska 
regarding the number of fish caught in the respective streams. 

Mr. Wickersham. Isn't it true that they catch only one-fifth of 
the salmon out of Karluk that they once did years ago ? 

Doctor Evermann. It is very much less; yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Isn't it true that some of the canneries have 
torn down and moved away from Karluk % 

Doctor Evermann. That is true. 

Mr. Wickersham. Isn't it true that that was formerly the greatest 
fishing stream in all Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. The greatest in the world. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is fished out, isn't it % 

Doctor Evermann. It is very much less, yes; but it varies from 
year to year. 

Mr. Wickersham. You say that these hatcheries are open to this 
objection, that they impound the fish so that they are not virile; the 
eggs are not strong. 

Doctor Evermann. That is true of only one; the others are all 
right. 

Mr. Wickersham. Take that one. That is true of that one, isn't it ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And the hatchery is within a mile of the salt 
water, away below the head of the stream, or below the big lake at 
the head of the stream. When those salmon come in a natural way 
into the Karluk River, where do they go % 

Doctor Evermann. Up the stream and the tributaries of that lake. 

Mr. Wickersham. Above the lake ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. After the small fish are hatched out, what do 
they do from that time until they get to the sea ? How long does it 
take to get them into the sea % 

Doctor Evermann. Not enough observations have been made as to 
that to permit a definite statement for all streams. 

Mr. Wickersham. Don't your bureau know about that? 

Doctor Evermann. We don't know just how long the salmon fry 
stay in Karluk. We have never had anybody at Karluk but once, and 
that was in 1903. 

Mr. Wickersham. What I want to know is whether your salmon 
hatchery at Karluk is of any value or not ? 

Doctor Evermann. As I have said, I do not think the salmon hatch- 
ery at Karluk is of as great value as it would be if it were located in 
another place. I can say this: In 1903, when we had a man on Kar- 
luk Lake, he was astonished at the number of salmon fry that were 
found there on the spawning beds in the fall. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where are the spawning beds ? 

Doctor Evermann. We were inclined to think that the catch of sal- 
mon at Karluk was so great that very few got on the spawning beds. 
The beds are in the streams tributary to the lake. 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 13 

Mr. Wickersham. How far are those beds from the mouth of the 
Karluk ? 

Doctor Evermann. Several miles above the hatchery; 3 or 4 miles. 

Mr. Wickersham. Isn't it more than that? 

Doctor Evermann. Perhaps so; I have never been above the 
hatch ery . 

Mr. Wickersham. Then you have no means of knowing how long 
these small fry remain in the stream before they go into the salt water ? 

Doctor Evermann. We have never made any investigation of 
Karluk River. The time is not the same for all streams. 

Mr. Wickersham. How large are they after they get back? 

Doctor Evermann. We have made an investigation in the Sacra- 
mento River, and Mr. Rutter traced them down the Sacramento 
River to salt water; and they came down to the salt water within a 
brief period. 

Mr. Wickersham. But you cjpn't know the conditions in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. That is another species. The Sacramento 
River salmon is a shinook salmon, while the Karluk salmon is the 
sockeye.. 

Mr. Wickersham. You don't know about the habits of the small 
fry in Alaskan waters, then ? 

Doctor Evermann. We have never made any investigation at 
Karluk throughout the entire season, but we have elsewhere, par- 
ticularly at Loring. 

Mr. Wickersham. Your hatcheries are all near the mouth of the 
streams, and away below the spawning beds ? 

Doctor Evermann. They are at the spawning beds in every case 
excepting at Karluk; both of the bureaus' hatcheries are right at the 
spawning beds. The private hatchery at Klawak I know is, and the 
one at Naha I know is. In fact all are well located except the one at 
Karluk. 

The Chairman. Is it your purpose, in your bill, Judge, to correct 
the governmental methods as to hatcheries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It ought to be done. 

The Chairman. Is it the purpose of this bill; have you a provision 
made yet ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I hope to do so if we can get definite informa- 
tion, so as to prepare a provision which the bureau thinks advisable 
to put in. I am not sure about that. 

I wish you would explain to the committee, Doctor, how you get 
the fry in your hatcheries; how you manage to get the eggs and hatch 
the fry, and what you do with them when you get them. 

Doctor Evermann. Take the Naha hatchery, where the salmon 
spawning beds are within a stone's throw of the hatchery. The crews 
go out from the hatchery to those spawning beds and seine salmon 
out of the stream, taking along with them spawn takers; that is, 
people who strip the fish, removing the eggs from the female and 
the milt from the male. The eggs are caught in basins, the milt is 
pressed out of the male and upon the eggs, fertilizing them, and then 
those basins are carried to the hatchery, and the people get back 
again in a few moments. I have seen them taking the eggs and the 
milt at Hetta, but I don't remember exactly the distance to the 
spawning beds. I have seen the work going on at Klawak, and I 
should say that the conditions are essentially the same as to the Naha 



14 GOVERNMENT FOE, ALASKA. 

stream. I would not change the location of those three hatcheries, 
that at Naha, the one at Klawak, and the one at Hetta Lake. Those 
are located as close to the natural spawning beds as necessary. 

Mr. Wickersham. And they are at the lower end of the spawning 
bed? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, essentially so. But the streams are 
small. The one at Naha is at the head; in fact, the salmon can go 
no farther there. At Hetta and at Klawak the streams are small, 
and you could walk in five minutes, I should say, to the farthest 
spawning bed at either of those streams. 

Mr. Wickersham. After they turn the small salmon out, do they 
go up to those spawning beds, or do they go out into the sea ? 

Doctor Evermann. They go down; and the hatcheries should con- 
sider very carefully that question, as to where to liberate the fry, for 
that is a very important matter. 

Mr. Wickersham. When the eggs and the milt are taken from the 
two fish, they are then put into the incubator. Will you please 
describe that process ? 

Doctor Evermann. They are carried to the hatcheries and spread 
out on wire screens, which are essentially of the same construction 
as wire window screens — that is, using a wooden frame that is painted 
or tarred. The mesh of those screens is sufficiently small to prevent 
the eggs from passing through. They are placed upon that screen 
in the hatchery. The frame of this screen is different in different 
places. They are placed in long troughs,, the water is let in at the 
upper end of the trough, and it flows over the eggs carrying oxygen 
to them. The water is kept at the correct temperature, and the eggs 
are watched from day to day. Attendants remove every day the 
diseased or dead eggs, or those which spread disease among them. 
When the fry hatch they drop down into the bottom of the trough 
and lie there, but they tend to go to the upper end of the trough, and 
are kept there until they have absorbed the yolk sac, and after that 
they will be planted sooner or later, depending upon the space they 
have in which to retain them. If they have plenty of space they 
keep them longer, but if the number of fry is enormous, as it usually 
is, they will be planted as soon after as the sac is absorbed. 

Mr. Wickersham. What do you mean by planting ? 

Doctor Evermann. Placing them in fresh water, or some place 
where it is supposed they will stand the best chance of living. 

The Chairman. As a mere theorist, it would seem to me that they 
ought to be planted as near the natural condition as possible. 

Doctor Evermann. It is the opinion of a great many fish cul- 
turists that the best place to plant fish is upon the beds where they 
naturally would be spawned. 

The Chairman. Are there not a great many enemies to the fish 
there ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; and that is one objection to planting 
them upon the natural spawning beds, because that is where the 
natural enemies have congregated; so that that is a disadvantage. 
None of these questions is one-sided; you have to view them from 
different angles. 

The Chairman. I suppose that it may be said in a general way 
that the purpose of legislation in relation to fisheries and canneries 
would be to try to preserve for all the people the great source of food 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 15 

supply, and to that end the purpose of the legislation being to pre- 
vent catching them out of these streams utterly, and to provide for 
the restoration of fry so as to keep up the supply — the natural supply — 
in the various streams. Of course we do not want, I take it, to impair 
any industry. On the contrary, we want to continue the industry, 
and to that end we want, so far as possible, to make the law tend to 
the continuance of the supply. 

Doctor Evermann. That is what we want. We want a perma- 
nent and a continuing supply. And legislation should have for its 
first and primary object the development of the supply to its maxi- 
mum. 

- The Chairman. Now, Judge Wickersham called your attention to 
the trap method ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; but I would like to ask some more ques- 
tions about the hatcheries before you get away from that. 

When you get your fish hatched in this artificial method of putting 
the milt of the male and the eggs of the female together and hatch 
them in the troughs with your incubator, how large are they when 
you turn them out ? 

Doctor Evermann. They are very small, 2 inches or less in length. 
Sometimes an effort is made to retain them until they are what are 
called fingerlings, which would be 3 inches or more in length. They 
then are perhaps a year old. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you think a fry or a fingerling, hatched and 
raised under those circumstances and under those conditions, is 
equally strong and vigorous with the fry or fingerling raised by the 
natural method? 

Doctor Evermann. I can answer that question best by giving an 
illustration. A number of years ago the Bureau of Fisheries sent 
a lot of very minute shad over to the west coast, shad that were an 
inch or less in length; in fact, they were hatched while in transit 
from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. Just as the car got to 
the Sacramento River those small shad — shad fry — were planted in 
the Sacramento River. There were no shad on the west coast up 
to that time, and the only shad that are there now are the result 
of that planting, and one or two subsequent plants that were made 
from the Atlantic coast. But the catch of shad on the west coast 
to-day is enormous; in fact, more shad could be caught on the west 
coast than on the east coast, and the Bureau of Fisheries is seriously 
considering the feasibility of going to the west coast to get shad 
eggs to plant upon the Atlantic coast. That, to my mind, is an 
absolute demonstration of the value of fish culture as applied to 
shad. 

The Chairman. I was wondering whether you had ever considered 
the transfer of Pacific salmon to the Atlantic coast ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

The Chairman. Has it been tried ? 

Doctor Evermann. It has been tried, and with a little success, but 
not very great. 

The Chairman. The habits are quite different ? 

Doctor Evermann. At about the same time the shad were planted 
on the west coast the striped bass was planted on the west coast, 
and that has increased so that the catch of those two species of fish 
on the west coast annually amounts in value to many times over 



16 GOVERNMENT FOE, ALASKA. 

the entire appropriation which Congress makes for scientific work 
for the Bureau of Fisheries. That, to my mind, is an absolute 
demonstration. Now, you can not have such a demonstration, of 
course, as to the result of artificial propagation in a place where the 
species is already indigenous, because you can not say that so much 
of this increase is due to artificial propagation and so much to natural 
propagation. But here, in the case I have cited on the west coast, 
it was all due to artificial propagation. 

Now, taking up the question of the transfer of the Pacific coast 
salmon to the east coast, I will say that an effort was made to put 
the Chinook salmon into Sunapee Lake, New Hampshire. Anglers 
during the past three years have been reporting large catches of 
Chinook salmon from that lake every spring and fall, so that they 
are very enthusiastic over the possibilities. But it has not reached 
commercial value as yet. I see no reason, however, why they 
should not be transferred, particularly as to the humpback salmon 
and the silver salmon. They go into the smaller streams, and 
would better suit the streams of New England. The Chinook and 
the red salmon go into the streams of a certain kind only, the latter 
only into those that have lakes at their head. 

(Adjourned at 12 o'clock, noon.) 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, Thursday, April 28, 1910. 
The committee met this day at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward 
L. Hamilton, chairman, presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. The committee 
this morning will resume its hearing on House bill 22579, and Doctor 
Evermann is present. Now, if you are ready to proceed, you may, 
Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
MR. M. C. MARSH, OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, DEPART- 
MENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 

Doctor Evermann. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, 
with your permission I would like to consider the present bill of Judge 
Wickersham, in so far as it relates to the fisheries of Alaska, in connec- 
tion with the existing Alaska fisheries law. The law now in force was 
approved June 26, 1906. It was the outcome of the investigations of 
the Alaska Salmon Commission of 1903, of which Dr. David Starr 
Jordan was chairman, and of which I was vice-chairman. The other 
members of that commission (of whom there were four) were gen- 
tlemen possessing large practical knowledge of the Alaska fisheries. 

That commission, with a number of specialists as assistants, spent 
the entire summer and much of the fall of 1903 in Alaska, during 
which time all the canneries and hatcheries and most of the fishing 
grounds of southeast Alaska, all the canneries and hatcheries and 
nearly all the fisheries of the Karluk-Chignik region, and all of those 
of the Bristol Bay region were visited. Conferences were had with 
all the cannery superintendents and with scores of foremen of fishing 
gangs and individual fishermen — Indians as well as whites. 

An effort was made to secure actual knowledge and first-hand in- 
formation regarding as many phases of the fishery question as pos- 
sible. Upon the completion of the field work we prepared and sub- 
mitted (on November 13, 1903) a report which went into the question 
quite thoroughly and in detail. That report'was published as House 
Document No. 477, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session. It con- 
tained a number of recommendations concerning needed legislation, 
but they did not come up for serious consideration by the Congress 
until in the winter of 1905-6, when the late Mr. Cushman, of Wash- 
ington, introduced House bill 13543, for the protection of the fisheries 
of Alaska. The bill as introduced by Mr. Cushman was drawn by 
the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor, and Mr. 



2 GOVERNMENT FOE ALASKA. 

Cushman, after a number of conferences with the Alaska Salmon Com- 
mission, the Alaska salmon agents, the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, the Commissioner of Fisheries, and a number of representa- 
tives of the canning companies doing business in Alaska. The bill 
as finally passed was, in the main, satisfactory to the Bureau of Fish- 
eries and in most respects to the fishing companies. It did not pass 
in precisely the form in which it was drawn by the solicitor and Mr. 
Cushman. 

As I have already said, the present law was based primarily on 
the recommendations of the Alaska Salmon Commission, which are 
found on pages 26-30 of the report. The recommendations and dis- 
cussions of that report that should be considered at this time are 
those relating to the methods of the fisheries, to hatcheries, to taxes, 
and to administration. 

The Chairman. Not to interrupt you, but will you kindly repeat 
that last summary there ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. The recommendations and discus- 
sions of that report that should be considered at this time are those 
relating to the methods of the fisheries, to hatcheries, to taxes, and 
to administration. 

First, as to methods of the fisheries in Alaska: The report states — 
and it is equally true to-day — that the salmon fisheries are carried 
on by means of pound nets, gill nets, haul seines, and purse seines, 
and that the method varies with the locality. 

The Chairman. What was the other kind of seines you mentioned 
there besides purse seines? 

Doctor Evermann. Haul seines. For example, haul seines are 
used exclusively at Karluk and largely at Alitak. Purse seines may 
be used where there is no good haul shore. Gill nets are used in or 
off the mouths of rivers whose waters are more or less turbid so that 
the fish can not see the net. Bristol Bay is a place of this character, 
and Chignik, Quadra, Chilkat, etc., to some extent. Pound nets are 
used to a considerable extent in the northern part of southeast 
Alaska and at Chignik. They are useful where the bottom, tides, 
shores, and other physical conditions render the other kinds of gear 
difficult of operation. 

All of that is discussed on page 11 of the report. Each of these 
methods of fishing is an honest method. Each has its advantages. 
Gill nets and seines require a large number of men in their operation, 
which is an advantage or not, depending upon whether the person 
answering the question is an employer or an employee. They are 
relatively cheap, which is also an advantage. 

The gill net always kills the fish, and fish so taken do not reach 
the cannery in as fresh condition as they should. And sometimes, 
in stormy weather, the gill nets are carried away by the storm or can 
not be lifted as often as they should, and the fish in them at the time 
decay. These are two objections to gill nets. 

Among the objections to pound nets are the following: They fish 
automatically and continuously unless regulated; it is possible to 
place them where they would seriously deplete the stream into 
which the fish are going; they take a good many coarse fish that the 
canneries do not utilize; they sometimes take more fish than the 
canneries can utilize. 



GOVEENMENT FOR ALASKA. 3 

The advantages are that they are a labor-saving machine and, of 
of course, meet with the objection that is urged against every labor- 
saving device; pound nets never go on a strike; gill nets and seines 
(or the people who operate them) do. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you ever known of a strike among the 
fisheries in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. When? 

Doctor Evermann. In 1903. 

The Chairman. He is speaking of nets now. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; he is speaking of strikes in Alaska. 

The Chairman. He says pound nets never go on strikes. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know; but that means men. Have there 
been any strikes since 1903? 

Mr. Marsh. Lots of little strikes, but no general strikes. 

Doctor Evermann. General strikes are impossible, because of lack 
of communication. 

Mr. Wickersham. Excuse me for interrupting you, Doctor. 

Doctor Evermann. Now, although the pound nets fish auto- 
matically, they can be regulated so as to cause little or no waste of 
coarse or other fish; the fish taken in pound nets are not killed as 
they are in gill nets, and therefore reach the cannery fresh and in 
excellent condition; excessive catches, surplus fish, and the coarse fish 
not desired can be allowed to escape alive, a thing impossible with 
gill nets. 

I may say that they do not always allow them to escape alive, 
however. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am informed that no fish out of a pound net 
ever lives. 

Doctor Evermann. Oh, yes.* There is no reason in the world 
why they should not. They simply run into an inclosure like this 
room, and they are alive when they come to brail them out, and 
put them in a scow to be carried to the cannery; and they can easily 
brail out and put into the water the fish that they do not want. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not personally know, but I am informed, 
Doctor, that they throw the others out with a fork, invariably. 

Doctor Evermann. I do not understand they do it invariably, 
but even if they did it occasionally, they should not. There is no 
necessity for it. They should be required to return all the fish they 
do not desire to save alive to the water; but Dolly Varden trout 
ought not to be returned, neither should the dogfish be returned. 
They ought to destroy them, because they are destroyers of other 
fish, but any fish of any value could very easily be liberated; that 
is a matter susceptible of regulation. 

Mr. Conry, What is a pound net ? 

Doctor Evermann. That was gone into the other day at the 
hearing; but it is a net which consists essentially of a long leader 
extending from near shore outward into deeper water, whose purpose 
is to prevent the fish from going on, but to turn them in from the 
shore toward the large corral or pound, upon the outer end where 
they enter the pound or trap in which they are kept until the company 
can come and get them. 



4 GOVERNMENT FOE ALASKA. 

The Chairman. It means to impound them? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

The Chairman. I understand generally what a gill net is. The 
fish swim into the net, and the meshes are so small that they can not 
swim through, and when they enounter this obstacle they try to get 
back, and the net catches them under the gills ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. The net catches them under the fins 
and gills and they are held, and in time of course they become drowned. 

The Chairman. What is the difference in size between the gill net 
and the ordinar} 7 pound net ? 

Doctor Evermann. The pound-net mesh ought to be finer than 
the gill-net mesh. That is, it should be so fine as to prevent the fish 
from gilling or going through. 

The Chairman. Is it ordinarily used that way ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; to all intents and purposes it could be 
solid, so far as that is concerned. The fishermen do not want them 
to gill. 

To repeat, each kind of fishing gear has its advantages and disad- 
vantages. Each is an honest and fair method, and it is doubtful if 
the Government should undertake to discriminate in favor of one 
and against another equally honest method. 

It seems that any possible abuses in the use of any of these kinds 
of gear could be prevented by regulations. 

The salmon commission of 1903 said that "the ultimate interests 
of Alaska and the permanence of her salmon fisheries would justify 
the abolition of all pound nets in Alaska, but to do so would practi- 
cally close up the canneries in some localities." 

That is on page 29 of their report, and in the letter from Doctor 
Jordan to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, dated December 9, 
1907, to which Judge Wickersham referred at the other hearing, 
Doctor Jordan makes this statement, which, as I remember, was cor- 
rectly quoted in the magazine article which was read. This refers to 
the Bristol Bay region. The letter was written apropos the propo- 
sition to close Wood River in Alaska to all fishing. That request was 
made by the gill-net and haul-seine fishermen, and its granting was 
opposed by the trap or pound-net fishermen. 

The Chairman. Can you refer to the map there, Doctor, and show 
us where Wood River is ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. This is the river right here [indicating 
on map]. Here is southeast Alaska, away down here [indicating]. 
Here is Karluk. Klawak is down here. Here is Afognak, where the 
Government has a hatchery. This is Bristol Bay. This is the 
Nushagak River, and that is Wood River, a tributary of the Nushagak. 

The Chairman. How far north on the coast of Alaska are these 
canneries ? 

Doctor Evermann. Those are the most northern. There is none 
on the Yukon or on any of these northern rivers yet. 

The Chairman. Do the salmon run as far north as the Yukon ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; but the season is so short there, and there 
are so many physical difficulties in the way that the canneries have 
been kept out. 

Mr. Wickersham. The river is so lame and wide also ? 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 5 

Doctor Evermanx. Yes. This letter of 1907, speaking of the 
Wood River and generally of Alaska and all the rivers running into 
Bristol Bay, is as follows : 

Leland Stanford Junior University, 
Stanford University, Cal., December 9, 1907. 
Hon. Oscar S. Straus, 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I wish very strongly to second the movement begun by the Fishermen's 
Union with a view to closing Wood River in Bristol Bay entirely to fishing, .and with 
a view to closing Nushagak River to all traps and stationary nets. The importance 
of these rivers to the fishing industry of Alaska is treated fully in our report for 1904. 
I may say, however, that these rivers, with two or three others running into the head 
of Bristol Bay, are the greatest salmon streams in the world carrying an enormous body 
of the Alaska red salmon. The value of the fisheries run some years as high as three 
or four millions of dollars. These streams have been badly overfished and the output 
has fallen off. It will continue to fall away with great rapidity to the injury of the 
fishermen, the packers, and the people of the United States to whom these rivers 
belong. 

In California and to some extent in Southern Alaska it is possible to make good the 
injury due to overfishing by means of hatcheries, but it is an open question whether 
any hatchery can be made successful at Bristol Bay. The country is a vast swampy 
tundra-covered area, very cold in winter and frozen solid during the greater portion 
of the year. It is apparently a mechanical impossibility to make the small streams 
which the hatcheries can use available for such purposes. 

Of all the rivers running into Bristol Bay the one most available for keeping up the 
fish supply is Wood River, and this stream ought to be absolutely protected from 
fishing that it may become the breeding ground of the red salmon. I believe also 
that the fixed traps or pounds ought to be eliminated from Alaskan waters. They 
involve the automatic destruction of more fish than the rivers can stand. As a first 
step toward a larger end I should favor the removal of the fixed trap from the Nushagak, 
which is the largest of the Bristol Bay rivers. If the great fisheries of Alaska are to 
be preserved, it is essential that the United States Government should assume control 
over the streams which constitute the breeding grounds of the salmon and see to it 
that they are free from dangerous obstructions. 
Very truly, yours, 

David Starr Jordan. 

The Chairman. That is addressed to the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Has the Secretary of Commerce and Labor the 
power to control absolutely as to where fishing can be carried on ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; he is under certain restrictions; that is, 
with reference to all the large rivers he can prohibit; he can reserve 
any stream in Alaska for salmon-propagating purposes. 

Mr. Wickersham. The President can do it ? 

Mr. Brown. The Secretary can. 

Doctor Evermann. No; I think the power rests with the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor. 

The Chairman. That is a long step in what I should think would be 
the right direction. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know the Russian-American case, Mr. Brown, 
but I think it is based on the power of the President rather than on 
the power of the Secretary. 

Mr. Brown. It is in the power of the Secretary. 

Doctor Evermann. Section 6 of the present Alaska salmon law 
says : 

That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor may, in his discretion, set aside any 
streams or lakes as preserves for spawning grounds, in which fishing may be limited 
or entirely prohibited. 



6 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. I was mistaken, Mr. Brown. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Brown. You will find that that order is signed by the Secretary. 

The Chairman. You say the Wood River has been closed ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What other rivers have been closed by the order 
of the Secretary ? 

Doctor Evermann. A stream flowing into Yes Bay has been closed. 

The Chairman. Will you kindly point that out ? 

Doctor Evermann. The map is not sufficiently detailed to show 
small streams in southeast Alaska. It is above Ketchikan. That is 
one. No fishing is allowed in certain others. I can not give them 
just at this time. Perhaps Mr. Marsh can give them, as he is the 
Alaska salmon agent. Personally, I do not believe we are yet ready 
to take such drastic measures as to prohibit fishing by pound nets. 
But I think they should be regulated. 

The Chairman. Is the power lodged anywhere to regulate the use 
of pound nets ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
I think, has authority to regulate those nets. 

The Chairman. That is, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
may when his attention is called to the condition; in any condition, 
that is, in any fishing ground or river, he may prohibit or restrain 
the use of pound nets ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Marsh. Not completely. 

Doctor Evermann. The point is this: There are certain clauses in 
the law which say where pound nets may be placed — not closer than 
within 100 yards of the mouth of any red-salmon stream. I do not 
think under the law he could prohibit them from coming nearer than 
500 yards, for instance. I doubt if he could do that, but he ought 
to have that authority. One hundred yards is too close a distance in 
many cases. The section which covers that, section 4, is this: 

That it shall be unlawful to lay or set any drift net, seine, set net, pound net, trap, 
or any other fishing appliance for any purpose except for purposes of fish culture, 
across or above the tide waters of any creek, stream, river, estuary, or lagoon, for a 
distance greater than one-third the width of such creek, stream, river, estuary, or 
lagoon, or within, one hundred yards outside of the mouth of any red-salmon stream 
where the same is less than five hundred feet in width. It shall be unlawful to lay or 
set any seine or net within one hundred yards of any other seine, net, or other fishing 
appliance which is being laid or which has been laid or set in any of the waters of 
Alaska, or to drive or construct any trap or any other fixed fishing appliance within 
six hundred yards laterally or within one hundred yards endwise of any other trap or 
fixed fishing appliance. 

That is to prevent conflict between fishing gangs. 

The Chairman. Now, you construe that statute to give him the 
power. Of course his power is limited by the statute. How far may 
he proceed under that ? 

Doctor Evermann. If I understand it, if the Secretary wishes to 
reserve any particular salmon stream for salmon-spawning purposes 
he could limit, restrict, or prohibit the fishing to that extent which 
would permit the fish which would ordinarily go to that stream to go 
to it. 

The Chairman. Now, will you kindly refer to the language of the 
law upon which that authority is supposed to be based? 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 7 

Doctor Evermann. Section 6 provides: 

That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor may, in his discretion, set aside any 
streams or lakes as preserves for spawning grounds, in which fishing may be limited 
or entirely prohibited. 

The Chairman. You can do that with any stream ? 
Doctor Evermann. Yes; any stream. Let me read a little fur- 
ther : . - 

And when, in his judgment, the results of fishing operations in any stream, or off 
the mouth thereof, indicate that the number of salmon taken is larger than the natural 
production of salmon in such stream, he is authorized to establish close seasons or to 
limit or prohibit fishing entirely for one year or more within such stream or within five 
hundred yards of the mouth thereof, so as to permit salmon to increase: Provided, 
however, That such power shall be exercised only after all persons interested shall be 
given a hearing, of which due notice must be given by publication. 

That was done with Wood River. 
Mr. Marsh. And the Nushagak ? 
Doctor Evermann. Yes [reads]: 

Provided, however, That such power shall be exercised only after all persons inter- 
ested shall be given a hearing, of which due notice must be given by publication; and 
where the interested parties are known to the Department they shall be personally 
notified by a notice mailed not less than thirty days previous to such hearing. 

That was done with the Wood River [reads] : 

No order made under this section shall be effective before the next calendar year 
after the same is made: 

And provided further, That such limitations and prohibitions shall not apply to those 
engaged in catching salmon who keep such streams fully stocked with salmon by 
artificial propagation. 

The Chairman. Where they keep such streams fully stocked? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; that would be a matter of interpretation, and 
presumably, the Secretary would act on the advice of the salmon agents. 

The Chairman. Then, under existing law the power is lodged with 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to stop fishing in any stream 
which in his judgment is being depleted? 

Mr. Marsh. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for a moment, that 
does not give him the power you may infer. All the fishing is outside 
of the rivers. The fishing is in the salt water, and he has very little 
power over the salt water. 

Mr. Wickersham. He has not any, has he? 

Mr. Marsh. He has off the mouths of the rivers. 

The Chairman. Then, if you wanted to have extended the power 
of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, you would extend the dis- 
tance from shore so as to increase his jurisdiction? Would that 
accomplish the purpose ? 

Doctor Evermann. Under this his power extends 500 yards from 
the mouth of the stream. In some cases it should extend farther. 

The Chairman. You would make the law general if you are going 
to extend his jurisdiction? 

Doctor Evermann. Undoubtedly, so that if in the judgment of 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor the presence of a trap or gill 
net or any other fishing device in any region was detrimental to the 
spawning beds of that stream, whether 100 yards away or 1,000 
yards away, it should be stopped. 

The Chairman. Have you thought of that, Doctor, so as to be able 
to suggest to the committee how far out you would extend his juris- 
diction into the sea ? 

486S4— 10 4 



8 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

Doctor Evermann. I would not place any limit upon it. I would 
leave it to the judgment of the Secretary. 

The Chairman. In other words, you would amend the statute 
by striking out 500 ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. I would strike out that limit. The only 
reason why a limit was placed in was, I think, this — we do not know 
enough about the migration and movements of the fish that enter the 
channels in southeastern Alaska to say where these fish are heading. 
That was perhaps the reason for placing a limit in this case. 

The Chairman. Now, the purpose is the preservation of the food 
supply, and I judge from the reading of the law, as you have read it, 
that the power is now lodged in the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
with a view to securing a large regulation of salmon streams. Now, 
the difficulty is, I take it, that the jurisdiction does not extend quite 
far enough, inasmuch as fishing is conducted in the sea in most 
instances farther from the mouths of the streams than his jurisdic- 
tion extends. Therefore, to give the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor full power, you would take off that limit ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. And with your permission I would 
like to say that the Bureau of Fisheries has already made certain 
recommendations regarding needed changes in the salmon law in the 
way of giving larger authority to the Secretary, and also to the 
salmon agents, and Mr. Marsh, I think, is in a position to present this 
matter later. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Doctor Evermann. These words occur in the report of the salmon 
commission of 1903 regarding hatcheries: 

There can be no question of the value of hatcheries in keeping up the supply of sal- 
mon. By the influence of hatcheries on the Sacramento River the number of salmon 
entering that stream at present is greater than ever before known, and this in spite of 
a steadily increasing consumption and in spite of the destruction through lumbering 
and mining operations of most of the natural spawning beds in that river basin. By 
means of hatcheries the depletion of the salmon fisheries of the Columbia has been 
checked, and in spite of overfishing there are strong indications that those fisheries 
are assuming their former importance. 

And on page 18 of the report it is stated that — 

The key to the whole question of the future of the Alaska salmon industry lies in arti- 
ficial propagation of the red salmon. This species lays from 2,500 to 3,500 eggs; the 
king salmon a few hundred more. These eggs are placed among the gravel of the 
spawning beds, where they are fertilized by the milt of the male. Many, however, 
doubtless fail of fertilization. The eggs remain on the spawning beds many weeks or 
even months before hatching, and both they and the fry are attacked by the Dolly 
Varden trout, sculpins, sticklebacks, and by various other larger or smaller enemies, 
including fungoid diseases. The Dolly Varden trout, which swarms wherever sal- 
mon eggs or fry are found, is perhaps the most persistent and destructive. The fish 
duck is also very destructive. So many are the dangers which beset the young sal- 
mon that it is doubtful if one in a hundred or even one in a thousand ever lives to 
maturity. By artificial propagation practically all these dangers are eliminated. 
Practically every egg can be fertilized; the danger of disease can be greatly reduced; 
all the enemies that feed upon the eggs and fry can be eliminated, and a vastly larger 
proportion will grow to maturity. 

The Chairman. How do you manage that, Doctor ? 

Doctor Evermann. When the eggs are placed in the hatchery, of 
course sculpins and ducks and bullheads and other enemies, including 
the Dolly Varden trout, are excluded. 

The Chairman. A new set of enemies, then, would be presented 
when the fry are turned loose ? 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 9 

Doctor Evermann. Yes ; when the fry are turned loose enemies 
get at them, but they have been tided over a period when they would 
otherwise have been attacked by many enemies. Of course it is 
desirable to protect them as long as possible. This was Doctor Jor- 
dan's opinion in 1903. That he is now even more strongly convinced 
of the value of fish culture is evidenced by the report of the Interna- 
tional Fisheries Commission (of which he is the American member), 
recently printed as House Document 638, Sixty-first Congress, second 
session. On page 14 of that report he and Prof. E. E. Prince, the 
Canadian commissioner, say: 

It is recommended that the artificial propagation of the various species of food 
fishes in the treaty waters be continued by both countries and developed to the 
fullest possible extent and with the highest possible degree of efficiency, this work 
being regarded as of vital moment to the preservation and maintenance of the most 
valuable species of fishes. 

But the necessity for the artificial propagation of food fishes and 
the value of it are now recognized everywhere. It is just as neces- 
sary as the cultivation by man of the domesticated animals and the 
useful fruits and grains. It is no more possible for unaided nature 
to produce the fish required to meet the ever-increasing demand 
than it is for unaided nature to produce the fruits and grains and 
the animal foods the world requires. 

Now, as to taxes, this question was pretty fully covered in the 
hearing a few days ago. The salmon commission of 1903 recom- 
mended 5 cents a case on sockeyes and chinooks, 4 cents on cohoes, 
3 cents on other kinds, and that a tax be laid on fish put Up in other 
ways. Most of these recommendations are embraced in the present 
law. The schedule in the present bill is probably even better. 

Whether rebates shall be given those companies maintaining 

{>rivate hatcheries is a question of administration. Under the old 
aw everyone canning salmon was required to maintain a salmon 
hatchery and return to the water 10 salmon fry for each salmon 
canned. It was impossible to comply with that law in all parts of 
Alaska. Only one or two companies ever made any attempt to do 
so. The present law is meant to encourage the operations of private 
hatcheries by those companies who have locations where it is possible 
to do so. 

There are a great many streams where it is physically impossible to 
find a site where you can get water for hatchery purposes. Salmon 
must be propagated artificially if the supply is to be kept up. This 
can be done directly b}^ the Government, or the Government may 
assist canning companies to do it. At present both methods are 
followed. It would, in my judgment, be better for the Government 
to do it all; in which event the rebates that now go to the canneries 
should all be applied to fish-cultural purposes. 

The present system is not wholly satisfactory. The Government 
has only three fishery inspectors in all Alaska. It is impossible for 
them to go to all the canneries, fisheries, and hatcheries as often as 
is necessary for effective administration, to say nothing of investi- 
gations and study of salmon streams, which are of utmost importance. 
The fact is, more men — thoroughly trained men — and several suitable 
vessels are necessary. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me say right there, Doctor, that I quite 
agree with you about that, and I want to say to this committee that 



10 GOVEENMENT EOK ALASKA. 

I do not think the Fisheries Bureau is given anything like the amount 
of aid and assistance that ought to be given it in aid of the adminis- 
tration of Alaskan fisheries, considering the enormous value of those 
fisheries. I think the fisheries of Alaska would be very greatly 
improved if the Bureau of Fisheries were given more aid in that 
respect. They have done a great and good work, and I think they 
ought to be assisted and aided and encouraged. That is my view, 
and that is the view of the people of Alaska who know what the 
situation is. 

Doctor Eveemann. Yes. As I say, we need more men — thoroughly 
trained men — and several suitable vessels are necessary. The plan of 
administration recommended by the salmon commission ought to be 
adopted. Then, I am convinced, a rational system can be developed 
which will not only conserve the supply, but will permit an annual 
catch exceeding any yet known in the history of this great industry. 

Now, Mr. Marsh is in a position to give you some statistics that will 
bear upon these various questions. 

The Chaieman. Doctor, before you give way to Mr. Marsh, I want 
to ask you two questions. What does a government hatchery cost in 
construction 1 

Doctor Eveemann. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the original 
appropriation for the federal hatchery at Yes Bay, Alaska, was 
$50,000. That was intended to cover the expenses in connection 
with the selection of the site, the preparation of the site for the 
buildings, the construction of the buildings, and the maintenance 
of the hatchery for a year. 

The Chaieman. It is a one-story building, I assume ? 

Doctor Eveemann. I think it is a one-story building, with a loft. 
I have never been at the building. Mr. Marsh can tell you what the 
character of the building is. 

Mr. Maesh. It has an attic, but it is enormous and very long. It 
is all under one roof. 

The Chaieman. It cost $50,000 ? 

Doctor Eveemann. Yes; I think so. 

The Chaieman. How many government hatcheries do you think 
would be necessary to supply the Alaskan streams ? 

Doctor Eveemann. It would be a little difficult to say how many 
we should have in the end, but it would be desirable to have at least 
two more in southeast Alaska and one in the Bristol Bay region. 

The Chaieman. We have now, I believe you stated, seven? 

Doctor Eveemann. No; two. One in southeast Alaska, and one 
in middle Alaska; the one at Yes Bay, which is about there [indi- 
cating on map], and one at Afognak here [indicating]. Now, the 
private hatcheries are located as follows : One at Karluk, on Kodiak 
Island, and one at Loring (the Fortmann hatchery) and three smaller 
ones over here at Boca de Quadra, at Hetta, and at Klawak. These 
are private hatcheries. 

The Chaieman. In the private hatcheries the fry are ordinarily 
deposited in the streams near where they are hatched ? 

Doctor Eveemann. I am not familiar with the details as to where 
the private hatcheries deposit their fry. 

Mr. Wickeesham. As a matter of fact there is no inspection of that, 
and the Government does not know. 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 11 

Doctor Evermann. It knows to some extent, but not fully, be- 
cause we have not men enough to be there when the fry are planted. 

The Chairman. What evidence has the Government that the can- 
ners comply with the law for the deposit of fry ? 

Doctor Evermann. The law provides for an inspection of the 
hatcheries by the government inspectors. The request comes from 
the hatching companies in the beginning. 

The Chairman. For inspection ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; for inspection. 

The Chairman. And at what time of year, ordinarily ? 

Mr. Wickersham. At the time of the original location only ? 

Doctor Evermann. Whenever a private hatchery is established 
and ready for operation, the proprietor has permission to apply to the 
Government for an inspection of that plant, and an inspection has 
been made in every case, sooner in some cases than in others, but in 
every case before a recommendation for rebate was made; in every 
case. 

Now, what the Bureau of Fisheries can do with its present personnel 
is this: To inspect the hatchery as to its equipment and to consider 
what that hatchery can properly do if properly operated with that 
equipment; and it can size up the superintendent and the fish cul- 
turists who are in charge as to their ability to handle a fish hatchery. 
A judgment would be reached in considering the equipment of that 
hatchery in comparison with the equipment at one of the federal 
hatcheries, and to say that the Federal Government could take that 
hatchery with that equipment and with men as competent as these 
men would need to be and turn out certain results; that is all it can 
do. Or go to the hatchery later when eggs are in it and observe the 
way in which the eggs are handled by the people in charge, and deter- 
mine whether they are doing it intelligently or not. Then later our 
inspectors have been present in some cases when the fry have been 
planted and observed the method followed by those planting the fish, 
and decided whether those are rational methods of planting fish or 
not. But with only three salmon inspectors to cover the thousands 
of miles of coast of Alaska you see it is physically impossible for them 
to be at all of the hatcheries all the time when the fry are being planted 
and the eggs are incubating in the hatcheries. 

The Chairman. You are stating the ideal condition that would 
exist if the law could be carried out to the letter ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. I have stated what has actually been 
done. 

The Chairman. You have onty three inspectors in Alaska. You 
have how many private hatcheries — seven? 

Doctor Evermann. No; five. 

The Chairman. The inspectors first must visit the hatcheries, and I 
take it that is a necessity after it is constructed to pass upon the ques- 
tion whether it is a hatchery properly equipped and to ascertain the 
capacity of the personnel ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now, sometimes during the breeding season this 
hatchery is supposed to be filled up with fish eggs to its capacity, and 
then at a certain time the fry are deposited? I take it from what 
you say that in practice it is not possible for the inspectors to be there 
every year so as to see whether the fry are deposited in the streams ? 



12 GOVERNMENT FOE ALASKA. 

Doctor Evermann. That is true. It is impossible. 

The Chairman. So that the result is you must rely on what ? 

Doctor Evermann. On the sworn statement of the hatchery 
superintendent. 

The Chairman. Now, how many persons are employed ordinarily 
by the canners in the hatcheries ? 

Doctor Evermann. I do not know how many people these private 
hatcheries have, definitely. 

The Chairman. Has there been any cause of complaint as to 
whether the fry which are reported to have been deposited have actu- 
ally been deposited ? 

Doctor Evermann. Undoubtedly the question has been raised, but 
the Bureau of Fisheries has no reason for doubting that the different 
hatcheries have deposited the fry they have produced in the way that 
they thought was most advantageous. 

The Chairman. In the way they think most advantageous ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. Of course there is nobody there to tell 
them otherwise. They must naturally do what they think is best 
under the circumstances. 

The Chairman. What do they ordinarily think is the most advan- 
tageous method, as exhibited by their operation ? 

Doctor Evermann. So far as I know their methods of depositing 
the fry have been satisfactory, unless it would be at Karluk. There 
Was a report some time ago that the fry there were deposited in salt 
Water. We have no record of it, but I have no doubt Mr. Browne can 
tell what the company maintained. If they did that, in my judg- 
ment, that was a mistake. There is no reason for doing that at 
Loring, or at Hetta, or at Klawak, or at Quadra. There is no reason 
why the fry should not have been deposited on the natural spawning 
beds, where they would have been deposited if the female fish could 
have been allowed naturally to go to the spawning beds. 

The Chairman. So long as the law is as it is at present, and canners 
are authorized to conduct private hatcheries, should there not be 
some amendment to the law so that the Government may be actually 
informed on some other evidence than the evidence of the canners as 
to the number of the fry deposited ? 

Doctor Evermann. Undoubtedly that would be very desirable 
indeed, and I have no doubt the hatchery people would be glad to 
have more frequent inspection. 

The Chairman. How would you accomplish that ? 

Doctor Evermann. By a larger personnel; more people and means 
of getting from one part of Alaska to another. For instance, suppose 
our agent is at the Fortmann hatchery at Loring; at a certain season 
it is impossible to get over to Klawak, because it is isolated. 

Mr. Guernsey. How far separated are these private hatcheries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They are 1,000 miles apart. 

Doctor Evermann. There are two private hatcheries that are about 
800 miles apart. One is up here on Kodiak Island, and the other is 
way down here at Ketchikan. 

Mr. Wickersham. Around Wood River, though 

Doctor Evermann. We have no hatchery there. All the other 
private hatcheries are here, in this region [indicating on map]. 

Mr. Guernsey. Those are the ones that the three inspectors are 
supposed to inspect — those five hatcheries ? 



GOVERNMENT FOE ALASKA. 13 

Doctor Evermann. Yes ; to get to these four [indicating] and to 
this one [indicating]. But to get from Ketchikan to Klawak is 
harder than it is to get from Washington to Hongkong sometimes. 

The Chairman. Doctor Evermann, you have five private hatcheries, 
and you have three inspectors. Suppose you increased the number 
of inspectors to five, an inspector for each hatchery. What does an 
inspector get ? What is his salarj^ ? 

Doctor Evermann. The Alaskan salmon agent has a salary of 
$2,500. The assistant agent has a salary of $2,000, and the one who 
is denominated "inspector" receives $1,800. 

The Chairman. Now suppose you increased the number of inspect- 
ors to 'five — that would be an inspector to each hatchery. Then 
suppose you based the rebate on the certificate of the inspector, a 
Government employee, would you not accomplish, assuming that 
this situation should continue now, for a while at least — would you 
not accomplish a benefit ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir; that would be helpful. It would 
not cover the whole situation, however. 

The Chairman. Why not ? 

Doctor Evermann. Because there are other inspections that the 
salmon agents have to make in addition to the hatcheries. 

Mr. Wickersiiam. The food inspection ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; and they must inspect the canneries. 
They must visit all of them as many times as possible; they must 
visit the fishing grounds and see the fishing as it is carried on. Take 
an illustration: The assistant agent in southeast Alaska succeeded in 
placing fines against quite a number of pound nets, and collected 
about $8,000 in fines in one season, which was a pretty important 
matter. Now, it is true that the severe competition that exists in 
the fisheries of Alaska will force men who would otherwise be dis- 
posed to obey the law to violate the law. The weekly closed season 
particularly is the thing they are most likely to ignore. 

Mr. Wickersham. There were 12 indictments against the Alaska 
Packers' Association in 1908 for violations of the fisheries law. 

Doctor Evermann. This is a recommendation that was made a few 
years ago by the Alaskan Salmon Commission, and it seems to me it 
is still the right scheme, namely, to provide at least four hatcheries in 
Alaska; to have a naturalist in charge of the Alaska fisheries, and 
one assistant naturalist, and that there should be a superintendent 
of Alaskan fish-cultural stations. His duties then would be to have 
general charge of the federal hatcheries, and with his assistants he 
should inspect all the private hatcheries; and of course the necessary 
personnel m all these hatcheries and vessels would be needed. 

The Chairman. You have no naturalist now? 

Doctor Evermann. No. Fortunately, Mr. Marsh, the chief agent, 
is an excellent naturalist, and he is doing the best that any man can 
do in the two or three lines of work that he has to do. 

The Chairman. What is your official force in the regulation of the 
Alaska salmon industry? 

Doctor Evermann. An agent, an assistant agent, and an inspector, 
and the last is only of one year's standing in Alaska. Three men 
for the thousands of miles oi coast and a $11,000,000 industry. 

The Chairman. Perhaps the suggestion you have made there 
might seem a little ambitions, but supposing we could not induce 



14 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

Congress to proceed to that length, what could you suggest that 
would help the situation without proceeding to the full limit of the 
recommendation there ? 

Doctor Evermann. First, the construction of at least two more 
hatcheries, one in southeast Alaska and one in the Bristol Bay- 
region, and the enlargement of the Afognak hatchery, over at the 
other end of Afognak Island, where it is believed it would be possible 
to get from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 eggs every year. The hatchery 
at Afognak gets its full capacity noiv every year. A similar one on 
the other end of the island would be very helpful in that region. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me suggest this to you, Doctor : I have made 
a calculation as to what it costs the Government to maintain those 
private hatcheries and how much the private hatcheries take out 
of the government fund in the way of rebates. It was about $35,000 
last year. How much would it have cost the Government to maintain 
those hatcheries ? 

Mr. Marsh. You mean the private hatcheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. They get that much of a rebate. 

Mr. Marsh. I have some figures on that. 

Doctor Evermann. I maj^ say that British Columbia expends at 
least ten times as much on its fisheries as we do on all Alaska, and 
British Columbia is a relatively homogeneous or bunched unit as 
compared with Alaska. The fisheries laws of British Columbia are 
well enforced, while they are practically ignored on our side of the 
line in the State of Washington. In Alaska I think the laws are as 
well observed as you could expect companies to observe the laws 
who are so far away from inspectors and wardens and all that. 

The Chairman. And you recommend the increase of the govern- 
ment hatcheries to how many ? 

Doctor Evermann. At least two more, and still later we will need 
still more. Give us two new ones and enlarge Afognak. 

The Chairman. Have we not three now ? 

Doctor Evermann. No. We have one at Yes Bay and one at 
Afognak. Put a hatchery in the Wood River region and one some- 
where in southeast Alaska and enlarge the Afognak hatchery. 

The Chairman. That would make four in all ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; if you called the Afognak one. But call 
it two hatcheries, so that there would be three new hatcheries. 

The Chairman. How much would those cost, Doctor, about ? 

Doctor Evermann. I would not like to make any positive state- 
ment, Mr. Chairman, because the hatchery branch of the Bureau of 
Fisheries is not my line. But the estimate for the construction and 
equipment of hatcheries in Alaska was $38,000 in our report of 1903. 
It would cost more to-day than it would have cost then. 

Mr. McKinney. Forty thousand dollars for each one ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; $40,000 as a minimum; $120,000 for the 
three hatcheries. 

The Chairman. And you would increase the inspection service by 
how many ? 

Doctor Evermann. By at least two people. 

The Chairman. And that would make the number five ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 15 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not agree with Doctor Evermann about 
one thing. I think those men ought to be paid better salaries than 
he has suggested. 

Doctor Evermann. No ; we can not get or keep good men in Alaska 
at those salaries 

Mr. Wickersham. With the expenses so high. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. To expect a man to take charge of a 
fish-cultural station in Alaska at $1,500 is not reasonable. It is not 
reasonable to expect to get good men at that salary. 

Mr. Wickersham. Particularly when the ordinary miner gets $5 
a day and his board. 

The Chairman. Doctor, what would you do with the private 
hatcheries ? 

Doctor Evermann. If the Federal Government took over all 
hatching operations in Alaska, I suppose the companies would be 
disposed to sell their plants to the Government. The plants have 
cost a great deal of money, and the majority of them are well located; 
I should say all of them except the one at Karluk are well located, 
and that can be relocated in a very advantageous position by putting 
it up on the lake. 

The Chairman. If the private hatcheries did sell out to the Fed- 
eral Government, would there still be the need of the construction 
of the hatcheries which you have suggested here by the Federal 
Government ? 

Doctor Evermann. I think so, undoubtedly. That would not 
change the present need. 

Mr. McKinney. The operations of a private hatchery are directed, 
are they not, toward the production of fish in the particular fishing 
territory of the company, while the public hatchery, the government 
hatchery, would be general in its operations ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; a canning company maintaining a hatch- 
ery would naturally plant the output of that hatchery in places that 
they thought would be advantageous to their business. 

The Chairman. So as to put as much wheat back into the bin as 
it was thought possible for them to take out from time to time ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. Undoubtedly the Government would 
more widely distribute the output of any of our hatcheries, so as to 
benefit in as large a measure as possible the different fishery regions. 

The Chairman. Suppose a private hatchery were disposed to 
exaggerate somewhat the value of its hatchery when the Government 
came to negotiate with them. Probably they would not think the 
hatchery business should be discontinued, but you would not want 
to do anything that would operate as confiscation? 

Doctor Evermann. No. They would still be permitted to con- 
tinue the hatcheries if you withdrew the rebates, but doubtless they 
would be glad to have the Government take over the hatcheries. 
But Mr. Browne can speak for that rather than I. At any rate I can 
say this, that the Government is in a position to buy or not to buy, 
just as it pleases, I think. 

The Chairman. Speaking for myself, Doctor Evermann, I would 
be very glad if you would furnish to this committee a memorandum 
of needed amendments to the fisheries law, and in that connection 



16 GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 

frame up something in the nature of a bill for the consideration of 
this committee in connection with the bill now before it. 

Doctor E verm ann. The bureau will be very glad to do that, sir. 

The Chairman. We would be very glad to have you do it. 

Mr. Good. Doctor Evermann, you spoke a little while ago in regard 
to the laws of British Columbia in connection with the fisheries. In 
what respect are they different from our laws ? 

Doctor Evermann. They have a number of vessels which are used 
in the patrol service, three steam vessels, which enable them to reach 
all parts of British Columbia and keep pretty close watch on the fish- 
ing in all parts, and they have a number of launches or smaller motor 
boats, and a well-organized force of wardens or overseers. They have 
a weekly closed season, which their fishermen apparently never think 
of violating, and when the Sunday or Saturday weekly closing comes 
on, their nets are taken out of the water. That is the advantage of 
gill nets. On the Washington side the pound nets are used, and the 
pound nets can not be taken out of the water, and the disposition 
on the Washington side is to go on fishing. 

Mr. Marsh. It is a very easy matter to stop the fishing. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; if you have the necessary wardens. 

Mr. Good. They recognize the same methods as are employed in 
Alaska, such as pound nets, and so on ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. In the Fraser River, British Columbia, 
the fishing is almost exclusively with gill nets, but outside, around 
Vancouver Island, there are several pound nets, and far up around 
the west side quite a distance there are pound nets, and their method 
is the same as on the Washington side. 

The Chairman. As to the kind of nets and the method of fishing I 
understand from you that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor has 
the power to make regulations % 

Doctor Evermann. I did not wish to have the impression conveyed 
that the Secretary had the right to say, "You may use gill nets here, 
but you can not use a pound net." His power does not go that far. 
He has certain powers, but they are not adequate. 

The Chairman. Would you recommend that he be given the power 
to say what kind of nets could be used in various places ? 

Doctor Evermann. No ; I do not think I would be ready to say 
that, Mr. Chairman. I do not know that we should go that far. 
That would be virtually saying that the Secretary should have power 
absolutely to prohibit one method of fishing. 

The Chairman. Yes; but he might find that method of fishing 
proper in one place and not proper in another. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. No doubt something- ought to be done 
that would look toward more adequate regulation of the methods. 

The Chairman. How are you going to get at that ? 

Doctor Evermann. Just what that can be remains to work out. 
I would not feel competent on the spur of the moment to develop a 
scheme while standing here. 

The Chairman. Will you think that over ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Good. From what you have said, Doctor, I take it that some 
officer in British Columbia has the right or authority there to regulate 
those matters ? 



GOVERNMENT FOR ALASKA. 17 

Doctor Evermann. They have certain regulations, and in toto 
they are better than ours. 

Mr. McKinney. They must have certain discretionary power ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. May I ask the Doctor a question or two now? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Doctor, it is proposed to send the Albatross up to 
Alaska to make some sort of a survey of the fishing beds. Do you 
approve of that ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. It is proposed to send the Albatross up 
this year to make investigations regarding the location of halibut 
fishing grounds particularly. 

Mr. Wickersham. She is equipped for that class of work ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. I sent into the department a large number of 
requests from people in Alaska requesting that she be sent North for 
that purpose. Have you any information about the relative or com- 
parative value of the fisheries of Alaska with other parts of the world ? 

Doctor Evermann. Mr. Marsh can give you those figures. 

Mr. Wickersham. Very well. That is all. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, it is evident that there will be no 
opportunity to hear you to-day. It is now 12 o'clock. We will 
expect you here on Monday, however, if it is convenient for you. 

Mr. Marsh. At 10 o'clock? 

The Chairman. Yes; at 10 o'clock. If we do not get a full com- 
mittee, I will try to be here myself, and you can proceed anyway. 

Mr. Marsh. I will be here. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, the committee adjourned.) 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS 

RELATING TO 

FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS 
IN ALASKA 



STATEMENT OF 

MR. MILLARD C. MARSH 

ALASKA SALMON AGENT, BUREAU OP FISHERIES 

MAY 2, 1910 



SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1910 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES AND OTHER 
OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



Committee on The Territories, 

Monday, May 2, 1910. 
The committee was called to order at 10.35 a. m.,* Hon. Edward L. 
Hamilton (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, DELEGATE FROM 

ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, before this hearing upon fish- 
eries in Alaska proceeds I would like to read to the committee some 
extracts from the most recent papers from Seattle in relation to 
the fisheries in Alaska. The first article is an extract from the 
issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of Wednesday, April 27, 1910, 
containing a dispatch from Juneau dated April 21, 1910, reading as 
follows : 

The plants of the salmon canners of southeastern Alaska present unusually 
busy scenes this year for so early in the season. Operating forces are at the 
plants and are overhauling them and getting everything in readiness for a 
record catch. All the steamers coming from the south are heavily loaded with 
supplies, and much new machinery is in evidence. Every cannery in Alaska 
will be operated this season, and three new ones are being constructed that will 
be in shape to pack from 45,000 to 50,000 cases this season. The salmon 
fisheries of Alaska last year brought to the coast $12,800,000, and this year 
will probably run the figure up to $15,000,000. The cannery men, besides ex- 
pecting a record pack, expect higher prices. 

Mr. Lloyd. Where do they get the idea that they will receive 
higher prices? 

The Chairman. That is in conformity with the general conditions, 
I suppose. Where are these new canneries which are spoken of 
there to be constructed ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It does not say, but only mentions them gen- 
erally. 

The article that I will now read is also a dispatch, dated Juneau, 
April 21, and is headed : 

ALASKANS ASKING FISH PROTECTION OPPOSE CATCH OF HERRING FOR FERTILIZA- 
TION AND OIL PURPOSES. 

In its final report the grand jury, which adjourned at Ketchikan last week, 
made the following recommendation : 

" We recommend that appropriate legislation be enacted by Congress regu- 
lating the herring fisheries of Alaska and that the manufacture of fertilizer 
and oil from herring and other food fishes be prohibited, except as to the refuse. 
It has been shown to this grand jury by reliable evidence thai: the wholesale 
taking of herring in the waters of Alaska, as is now done, for the manufacture 
of fertilizers and oil, has so depleted the supply of fish which are food for 



4 FISHEKIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

king and other variety of salmon, the cod, the halibut, and other large and 
valuable fish, serious injury to the supply of the latter has resulted, and the 
continuance of such practices will in time effect their total destruction, as well 
as destroy the supply of herring for foods and the building up of industries 
of great benefit to Alaska and her inhabitants. 

" We call especial attention to the public policy adopted by the neighboring 
province of British Columbia, where the herring industry has been so regu- 
lated as to result in great public benefit to the people at large." 

Now, in the same paper, the Post-Intelligencer, of April 27, 1910^ 
there is an editorial upon the same subject, which is not long, and I 
desire to read that. It is headed : 

Alaska's big salmon pack. 

The Alaska canneries are making preparations to handle a great run of 
salmon the coming season. It is the confident expectation that the pack this. 
year will be worth not less than $15,000,000, which will put Alaska in the first 
rank in the value of its fisheries products, even leading the State of Wash- 
ington. Every old cannery in the Territory will be operated, together with 
three new ones which have been built since last season. 

Everyone knows of the enormous amounts of gold which Alaska has con- 
tributed to the wealth of the country. Few, save the people on the Pacific 
coast, realize that the other products of Alaska, which are shipped to the 
Untied States, aggregate in value nearly as much as all that Alaska imports 
from the rest of the country. Practically the gold which Alaska produces 
constitutes the balance of trade in favor of the Territory. It can pay all of its 
bills to the outside world with its other products, having the gold for " velvet." 

The control of the salmon-fishing industry of Alaska is entirely in the hands 
of the Federal Government. There is no local legislature and no local authori- 
ties to supervise it, and to see that the fish are properly protected and the regu- 
lations observed. Yet, while the salmon-packing industry in Alaska is greater 
than that of the State of Washington, the Federal Government expends but a 
small fraction of as much money in guarding the industry in the northern Ter- 
riory as the State of Washington expends in protecting the fishing industry 
here. 

The proposal has been advanced recently for the Federal Government to as- 
sume jurisdiction over the salmon fisheries of the State of Washington, and 
regulate and control them. There is a fertile and unappropriated field in 
Alaska for the federal authorities to practice upon before they interfere in this 
State. 

I simply wish' to read those into the record so that gentlemen may 
have whatever benefit there is to be derived from them. 

The Chairman. Doctor Evermann, have you finished your state- 
ment ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, if you are ready, you many proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MILLARD C. MARSH, ALASKA SALMON 
AGENT, BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Mr. Marsh. Mr. Chairman, I think that two of these three can- 
neries are going in — one on the Alsek River and one at Chignik. 

Mr. Wickersham. Alsek Kiver is just below Yakutat Bay. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, you are the Alaska agent of the 
Bureau of Fisheries? 

Mr. Marsh. "Alaska salmon agent " is the short expression for it. 

Mr. Chairman, I have several points to discuss, and part of them 
concern the principal subjects which are touched upon in the present 
bill and part do not. I suppose that I should confine myself to those 
things which the bill covers only. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 5 

The Chairman. Not necessarily, I should say. The committee 
desires all the information that it can obtain upon the general situa- 
tion. You may proceed in whatever manner is most satisfactory to 
you. 

Mr. Marsh. In the matter of taxes, I would say it would seem un- 
necessary and without any especial advantage to distribute the tax it 
is desired to raise over all the products and all the vessels, boats, 
gear, and even the fishermen themselves. The bill under considera- 
tion takes almost the whole tax out of the packing companies, and it 
would be simpler to put it all on the canned salmon — which is abont 
84 per cent of the whole product of the Alaska fisheries last year— 
and on certain of the minor products. This would greatly simplify 
the tax and make its collection as easy as possible. There is, in fact, 
some injustice in the taxes on vessels and gear, for in a bad year — 
and the packing business is one of vicissitudes which alone can 
bankrupt a packer in a seasoi* — the tax has to be paid on material 
which has produced but little. The tax on the product adjusts itself 
properly to the degree of success or failure. 

As for the products themselves, there should be some discrimina- 
tion. The canned red salmon should bear the brunt, for this is the 
profitable pack. The dog and humpback in cans are only worth half 
as much. In most branches of pickled salmon there is little profit, 
and the present taxes seem high enough. The belly of the salmon can 
no longer be cured unless the rest of the edible portion, the back — 
formerly thrown away — is also prepared or used for food. The backs 
of humpback salmon are worth but little. It would perhaps be well 
to exempt all backs of humpback salmon from taxation to encourage 
the use of this abundant salmon, which in some places overpopulates 
the spawning grounds and goes to waste. 

The offal and nonedible portions of the salmon in Alaska go to 
waste and pollute the waters. It is a great desideratum to have this 
made into fertilizer and oil, which should not be taxed at all when 
made from these waste products. It even seems worth while to offer 
at first a tax exemption, the equivalent of a bounty, for the manufac- 
ture of a useful product from this waste. 

I might say that there is at present no fertilizer or oil made from 
the waste in Alaska. It is used in the States to some extent. The 
canneries have not yet found it profitable to make the offal into fer- 
tilizer. And this waste not only pollutes the water, but it fills up in 
some places. It is to some extent an interference with navigation by 
filling up the channels. 

The Chairman. The canneries throw this offal, this waste, into 
the rivers, do they not ? 

Mr. Marsh. It usually goes into the sea right off the cannery. 

The Chairman. And does it float around there? 

Mr. Marsh. It floats around and washes up on the shore, washing 
back and forth with the tide, and decays. But there is a residue 
that is left which finally reaches the bottom and tends to fill it up. 
If the waters of Alaska were not of such enormous extent and unset- 
tled, the pollution would be very much more serious than it is. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, can you briefly sketch the present 
method of taxation in relation to the fisheries? 

Mr. Marsh. The present taxes ; yes. They are laid mainly on canned 
salmon. Canned salmon. 4 cents per case; pickled salmon, 10 cents 

48684—10 5 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

per barrel of 200 pounds; salted salmon, in bulk, 5 cents per 100 
pounds, which means dry salted as distinguished from pickled sal- 
mon ; fish oil, 10 cents per barrel ; fertilizer, 20 cents per ton. 

The Chairman. You advocate the remission of the tax on fish 
oil, do you not? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; only when made from offal and refuse. 

The Chairman. Oh, I see. 

Mr. Marsh. Those are not all the products. These products are 
not taxed at the present time. Any smoked products, smoked fish, 
fresh and frozen fish — that is all excepting a few miscellaneous and 
small items, such as ivory and the products of the whale fishery. 

The Chairman. Do you think that this offal and waste might 
very well be transformed into some sort of fertilizer that would be 
of commercial value? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; but it is not so very valuable for a fertilizer, 
for oil, or anything else, because it is mostly water; and I suppose 
unless you have an enormous quantity and approved machinery that 
there would not be anything in it. 

The Chairman. I suppose it certainly would have to have value 
enough to warrant its transportation by sea and by rail to points 
where it might be used. Do you think that by the utilization of this 
waste for fertilizer you could get a product that would be of com- 
mercial value? 

Mr. Marsh. Oh, yes; they use offal and refuse in Oregon and 
Washington for the manufacture of fertilizer and oil — fertilizer, any- 
way. The refuse and offal are not of much value; that is, there is 
very little flesh in it. The head and tail pieces and the fins would all 
go into the refuse. Occasionally, some whole fish will go in. 

The Chairman. You say that this offal is used in the State of 
Washington as a fertilizer? 

Mr. Marsh. I think so ; it is made up into commercial fertilizer. 

The Chairman. Do you know where it is principally sold ? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know. I think it is a question of getting this 
material together. It is spread out among the different canneries. 
Perhaps it would hardly pay to put in machinery at one cannery to 
take care of its own offal. Where they are somewhat bunched, and 
where one set of machinery could collect all the offal and take care 
of it, they might make it pay ; that is, it probably would not pay any 
profit, but it would pay its own expenses. Under those conditions 
we would be justified in making the canneries do it, for it is desirable 
not to have it in the water. 

The Chairman. There is no doubt about that. It seems to me that 
if the offal and waste could be converted into fertilizer it would be 
an excellent thing. There is no doubt at all that fertilizers are 
needed in the various parts of the country, and the question is 
whether that would be sufficiently valuable to warrant its manu- 
facture. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Good. Mr. Marsh, what information have you, if any, with 
regard to the taxes that are paid in the States by these concerns that 
are engaged in Alaskan fisheries on this property that is valued at 
something like $10,319,000 ? 

Mr. Marsh. I think we have nothing on that; in fact the bureau 
is not officially charged with any records concerning taxation. The 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 7 

clerk of the court in Alaska collects the taxes. We do not know 
what taxes they pay in the States on this property which they take 
to Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Two-thirds of that property is not taken out 
of Alaska. It is shore and accessor}^ property. 

Mr. Good. I notice $6,682,961 as the value of the shore and acces- 
sory property. 

Mr. Wickersham. That does not pay taxes anywhere. 

The Chairman. On April 26 I wrote a letter, as chairman of this 
committee, to the Attorney-General in relation to this question of 
taxes, and I will send it to you so that you may consider it, if you 
desire, in connection with your remarks. 

Mr. Marsh. I mentioned the fertilizer and the oil merely in con- 
nection with the taxes. I should suppose that taxes on fish oil and 
fish fertilizer that were made from the offal would entirely prohibit 
any possibility of making it profitable. 

The Chairman. So that you advocate no tax on fertilizer and fish 
oil made from the waste and offal? 

Mr. Marsh. That is the idea, yes ; although it may look ridiculous, 
because no oil or fertilizer is made at the present time from these 
sources. 

The Chairman. It is for the purpose of encouraging an industry 
growing out of the use of a material which is now absolutely lost? 

Mr. Marsh. Precisely. 

Now, in the matter of specific taxes on the products, we have here 
a tentative table which I don't think is worth reading into the record, 
but I will go over it if you like, item by item, or group by group, and 
explain the principles upon which the taxes are laid. I mean the 
discrimination between the different products. Take the canned sal- 
mon. The proposed bill has 5 cents per case. The present tax is 4 
cents on all cases. It was recommended by the Alaska Salmon Com- 
mission, of which Dr. Evermann has told you, in 1903, that the tax be 
5 cents on the superior varieties and 3 cents on the cheaper varieties ; 
or 5 cents on the king, sockeye, and coho salmon, which range in 
price from about $4 to $4.50 or thereabouts per case of 48 1-pound 
cans, and 3 cents on the two remaining species, the humpback and 
dog, which run about half as much. The dog is a little cheaper 
than the humpback, and worth about half as much as the others, so 
you could logically make a distinction and recognize a lower tax for 
those. But the sockeye (the red salmon) is enormously the greater 
product. All the others are insignificant. 

The Chairman. You make that recommendation, do you, Mr. 
Marsh ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. Of the inferior species the humpback is 
the most valuable, there being about $1,100,000 worth, while of the 
the sockeye or red salmon the amount was $7,600,000 ; so that it would 
make a smaller amount of tax from the inferior species. Take the 
pickled products: The main profit in the business is in the canned 
salmon. There is nowhere near the profit on the pickled salmon. 
Some branches of pickled salmon barely pay expenses and some do 
not, especially the whole salmon. 

The Chairman. The pickled salmon is simply the salted salmon ? 

Mr. Marsh. In brine; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What sort of a receptacle is it in ? 



8 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Marsh. Almost always in a barrel holding 200 pounds of 
salmon. The bellies, I believe, go in kits sometimes — fractions of 
the barrel. 

The Chairman. What is the principal market for that kind of 
salmon — the pickled salmon? 

Mr. Marsh. I think it is mostly on the coast. It does not get very 
far from the coast, I think. Isn't that true, Doctor Evermann? 

Doctor Evermann. I don't think much of it comes East. I have 
never seen much of it in the markets of Washington. 

Mr. Marsh. It does not last forever. It deteriorates in the brine 
more or less, and I suppose it will not stand the expense of freight 
transportation, while canned salmon is a much more compact and 
valuable product. 

The present bill, I think, doubles the tax on pickled whole salmon, 
or something like that. It seems to me that the present taxes are 
high enough. 

Now, if you will take the belly of the pickled salmon, that is worth 
more. That is the most valuable pickled product, and on the sockeye 
and the coho bellies you perhaps might double the tax just as the 
bill proposes. 

The Chairman. Let me make a suggestion there. In the revision 
of your remarks, personally, I would like to suggest that you make 
a recommendation as to the scale of taxes. 

Mr. Marsh.^ The exact amount? 

The Chairman. Yes, as to the scale; as you think they should be 
taxed upon these products. 

Mr. Lloyd. And omitting such things as you think ought not to 
be taxed. 

The Chairman. Yes; give us a complete statement of your views 
as to how the taxes should apply. 

Mr. Marsh. Inserting all items ? 

The Chairman. Where you think there should not be a tax, please 
so state, and the reasons for it. 

Mr. Marsh. Here we have the pickled humpback backs. That is 
the edible portion of the humpback salmon left after its belly has 
been pickled and prepared for market. Formerly they, threw that 
away, but since last year they have prepared it, as it was caught, for 
food, and they have salted some and pickled some, and salted some 
dry. 

The Chairman. Since last year, you say ; why ? 

Mr. Marsh. The department made a construction of that section 
of the law in regard to wanton waste, recognizing that practice as 
wanton waste and so announced to all of the packers ; and I think they 
have all abandoned the practice on that account. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, the average man knows of canned 
salmon; it is a matter of common food use. What are the kinds of 
salmon that are commonly upon the market in cans? 

Mr. Marsh. Five ; and each one usually under two or more names, 
and sometimes several names. 

The Chairman. Give the names, and give the order of their actual 
value as a food. 

Mr. Marsh. The King or Spring, the Chinook, the Columbia 
River, the Quinnat — all those names go with one species as perhaps 
the best quality of salmon. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 9 

The Chairman. What does that commonly sell for per can in the 
market here ; per pound can ? 

Mr. Marsh. I think not less than 25 cents ; is it not, Doctor Ever- 
mann ? 

Doctor Evermann. It will run from 25 cents to 35 and 40 cents, 
which is the price, I think, they get now for the oval cans, the can 
which is the shape of the cross section of the fish. 

The Chairman. They are packed originally in what size of cases? 

Mr. Marsh. A case contains 48 1-pound cans. 

The Chairman. And the tax applies to the case? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; but the case for the purpose of the tax is recog- 
nized as 48 pounds. 

The Chairman. And the tax under the present law on a case is 
how much? 

Mr. Marsh. Four cents on all cases — cases of all kinds. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me make a statement right there. The 
Government gets 4 cents a case of 48 cans, which Doctor Evermann 
says sells for 40 cents per can at the highest market price. 

Mr. Marsh. A few of them. 

Doctor Evermann. The ovals, I think, are not ordinarily put up 
in Alaska, as the ovals are the Columbia River salmon. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would like to know what Alaska salmon 
sells for. 

Doctor Evermann. I suppose the best Alaska product brings from 
20 to 25 cents. 

The Chairman. You say the oval cans are not put up in Alaska? 

Doctor Evermann. The ovals are put up on the Columbia River, 
the choice article. I thought you asked for the highest priced or 
best quality of salmon. 

The Chairman. I confess that I had some curiosity to know the 
relation of the tax to the price that the ordinary salmon sells for. 

Mr. W'ickersham. Let us take the lowest price stated by Doctor 
Evermann — 20 cents per can. For 48 cans that would be $9.60 per 
case in value. The Government receives 4 cents tax upon that case, 
which is less than one-half of 1 per cent ; and that is largely rebated 
and not paid. 

Mr. Marsh. Sometimes, and to some extent. 

Mr. Wickersham. To the extent of $35,000 last year, at 4 cents. 

Mr. Marsh. That was in 1908, I think. Last year it was about 
$30,000. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is probably correct. 

Mr. Browne. Would it be fair to take the wholesale price or the 
retail price? The wholesale prices are in the official report, which, 
I suppose, Mr. Marsh will present. If not, I will. 

Doctor Evermann. The retail price varies considerably with the 
quality of the article. You can get canned salmon in the market for, 
I think, 5 cents a can. 

The Chairman. Does the ordinary consumer know canned dog 
salmon from the other salmon? 

Doctor Evermann. I do not think he does. The ordinary con- 
sumer goes to a grocer and asks for a can of salmon. 

The Chairman. What I want to get at is this : Of course it is im- 
portant to make a distinction between the wholesale price and the 
retail price. My original inquiry grew out of the desirability of 



10 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

finding out how the ordinary consumer was treated in relation to this 
food supply, which, of course, would be a part of the general inquiry 
of how much more we are paying for things than we ought to pay 
for them. 

Doctor Evermann. I have made the rounds of a good many gro- 
cers here in Washington purposely to find out the brands of salmon 
they keep on hand, and I have gone into little grocery stores out in 
the country, in the smaller towns, to find out what they had. And 
we find that the better establishments keep the better grades and do 
not keep the lower grades at all ; while out in the country, in the small 
towns, they rarely keep anything excepting the poorer grades, which 
sell for 10 cents a can. The first-class grocery stores in Washington 
keep the best grades of Columbia River and Alaska red salmon. 

The Chairman. How much do they charge for those best grades, 
ordinarily ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have not inquired within the past few months, 
but I should say 15 to 20 cents for the best grade of Alaska reds. 
For the best grade of Columbia River Chinooks, the price would be 
higher, 30 and even 40 cents for the oval. The Argo brand, one of 
the Alaskan brands, is about 15 cents. That is the red salmon. 

Mr. Marsh. The next is the red, or sockeye; those are the two 
names. That is by far the most abundant salmon in Alaska. The 
bulk of the pack in Alaska is red salmon. 

The next is the Coho, or silver, salmon, which is almost as valuable 
as the red, but very much less in amount. Those are the three best 
salmon. 

Now, we have the humpback and dog salmon, which are the two 
inferior salmons. The humpback, as canned, is seldom called the 
humpback, but usually the pink salmon. 

The Chairman. A more attractive name to the public. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. The dog salmon is never called " Dog," but 
" Chum " salmon. That is the trade name when they use any trade 
name. Before the pure- food law was enacted, they called it "Alaska " 
salmon, " Fresh Alaska " salmon, and " Choice Alaska " salmon, etc. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now they call it " Chum." 

Mr. Marsh. If they use any trade name ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How does the new food law require them to dis- 
criminate ? Are you able to state that ? 

Mr. Marsh. We have a food-inspection decision which gives the 
names they may use. They are the ones that I have stated, and 
some others. It compels them to use some of these names and gives 
them all the names that will fairly state the case. 

Mr. Conry. Is the dog salmon good to eat ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir ; it is very good. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Indians eat it in preference to anything 
else, and they smoke them. 

Mr. Marsh. That would depend upon where the Indian is. All 
salmon are good to him. But that salmon has no color in it, and 
that is the objection to it. It sometimes has a little pink color, but 
when you can it, that takes all the color out. 

The Chairman. It tastes just as good as the red salmon, does it? 

Mr. Marsh. Most people think not. 

Mr. Wickersham. If it is caught under good conditions it is a 
good food fish. 



FISHERIES AXD OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



11 



I understand you, it is inferior to all the 



Mr. 



and 



Mr. Marsh. Yes. 
Mr. Houston. But, as 
others when canned? 

Mr. Marsh. When canned ; yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is that simply on account of the color, 
Marsh? 

Mr. Marsh. Not entirely, but almost entirely. 
Doctor Evermann. The dog salmon is largely used in Japan, 
that species is most highly prized there; it is called sake. 

The Chairman. Do the Japanese charge a duty on that salmon ? 
Doctor Evermann. I don't know about that. 

The Chairman. I was wondering whether our dog salmon went to 
Japan to any considerable extent. 

Mr. Wickersham. Can you tell the committee where the salmon 
is sold after it is canned? 

Mr. Marsh. Only in a general way. 
Wickersham. Where is'the trade? 
Marsh. An enormous quantity is in England. 
Wickersham. How much goes foreign ? Have you any figures 
to show that? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; I have not. 

Browne. A great deal goes to South America. 

Wickersham. Can you state how much goes to foreign coun- 



Mr, 
Mr, 
Mr. 



Mr. 
Mr, 
tries ? 
Mr, 
Mr. 



Browne. I can not tell you that. 

Wickersham. Isn't it true that nine-tenths of the salmon goes 
to foreign countries? 

(Following is the table referred to:) 



Exports of canned salmon from the United States for the years ending June 

30, 1904-1908. 



1904. 



Pounds. 



Value. 



1905. 



Pounds. 



Europe 33, 591, 896 83, 508, 818 I 21, 071, 263 

North America 2, 446, 023 l 204, 363 1, 565, 773 

South America | 2, 055, 859 | 147, 333 1, 708, 828 

Asia ! 12,995,768 , 930,054 3,994,862 

Oceania 3,898,606! 341,849 1 5,257,446 

Africa 936,126 I 92,181 | 1,468,383 



Value. 



1,877,509 
132, 134 
134,941 
280, 704 
467,928 
142,253 



1906. 



Pounds. 



32,061,402 
2, 069, 357 
3, 499, 603 
779, 415 
6, 340, 346 
1,194,291 



55,924,278 I 5,224,598 ; 35,066,555 I 3,035,469 ' 45,944,414 



Value. 



, 753, 643 
171, 946 
249, 052 
60, 173 
509, 267 
103, 872 



3,847,943 





1907. 


1908. 




Pounds. 


Value. 


Pounds. 


Value. 




7, 756, 780 
3, 052, 658 
5, 659, 690 
1,419,391 
6,719,157 
610, 429 


$791, 436 
261,138 
414, 774 
105, 364 
552, 205 
58,132 


13,321,086 
2, 654, 175 
5,571,000 
1,004,571 
5,131,554 
543, 659 


$1, 205, 375 




242, 879 




410, 743 




86, 908 




439, 917 




52, 696 








25, 218, 105 


2, 183, 049 


28,226,645 2,138,518 



12 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Total pack of canned salmon in the United States and Alaska, 1904-1908. 

Pounds. 

1904 L 137, 172, 480 

1905 168, 017, 088 

1906 153, 017, 088 

1907 159, 456, 096 

1908 157, 915, 344 

Mr. Wickersham. Why does it go foreign? 

Mr. Marsh. They pay for it, I suppose is the reason. They take 
a large pack. But we consume enormous quantities of salmon, while 
our cheaper grades go largely south. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where is the price fixed? 

Mr. Marsh. Out on the coast, I guess. 

Mr. Wickersham. Isn't it fixed in London ? 

Mr. Marsh. I don't think so. 

Mr. Browne. I can find out all of those points. I will wire and 
find out. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is fixed by your company in connection with 
London, is it not? 

The Chairman. What do you mean, that there is an international 
arrangement ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Not an international arrangement in the sense 
of any legal arrangement ; no. 

The Chairman. Are there not other countries engaged in fishing, 
perhaps not of the Pacific salmon to the extent that we are ; but do I 
understand from you that there are representatives of other countries 
who got together in London with our representatives, with the trade 
representatives engaged in the fish business in this country, and did 
try to arrange an international schedule as to prices ? 

Mr. Houston. Did you say that the price is fixed on the coast and 
at the same time the demand for the large bulk of the salmon is 
foreign ? 

Mr. Marsh. That is really the same point that Judge Wickersham 
is raising. They fix it on the coast ; they fix it in conjunction with 
their market ; but we consume enormous quantities here. 

Mr. Conry. How about the people that are employed ? 

Mr. Wickersham. A few of them, of course, are Alaskans, but the 
great majority of them are brought into Alaska in May. They are 
going there now, in the vessels which are owned by the companies, 
from San Francisco and Seattle and along the coast. They go up 
to Alaska and spend three months of the year in making the catch 
and then leave Alaska again. 

Mr. Conry. They are Americans, are they ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; 4,000 of them and over, as is shown by the 
reports, are Chinese and Japanese. 

Mr. Houston. What proportion of the whole number ? 

Mr. Wickersham. There are about twelve or thirteen thousand 
in all ; about one-third are Japanese and Chinese. 

Mr. Conry. What proportion is American ? 

Mr. Wickersham. That I don't know. 

Mr. Marsh. Now, I will go rapidly over these other items. Take 
the dry-salted whole salmon. There is very little of it prepared, and 
most of it is very cheap. The dog salmon is worth hardly a cent a 
pound, and I think they should not be taxed at all. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 13 

The Chairman. What fish are usually dry salted ? 

Mr. Marsh. The dog salmon. Last year we had some king salmon, 
and that is worth more, but there is hardly any of it — $45 worth — so 
the tax would not amount to anything. Most of the dog salmon is 
very cheap — dog salmon at a cent a pound — and there is little of it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, you were talking about the pickled sal- 
mon and the increase in it. Under the rate for all of the pickled 
salmon in 1908 the revenue derived was $3,907.25 under the rate 
given by the act of June 26, 1906. Under the rate fixed by my act it 
would amount to $7,814.50 total. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is all; but there is less than $4,000 in- 
volved in that increase — the total is small. 

Mr. Marsh. Those increases will come out of an industry yielding 
very little anyway. 

Mr. Wickersham. But it is only $4,000 in all. 

Mr. Marsh. It is not very nrueh. 

Mr. Wickersham. And that is true of all those items of increase 
excepting canned salmon, which you approve. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. I spoke of the backs of the salmon in the pickle 
and brine. Now, we have the backs dry salted, and the same thing 
applies to them. We might exempt them, and the same with the 
other salmon backs, at least with the humpback salmon. There are, 
however, no backs of the humpback yet smoked, but we should en- 
courage the preparation for food of that species all we can, because 
it is very abundant, and in some places where they do not fish it it 
actually goes to waste. So I think we can say, in general, that we 
should leave the tax off of all the prepared backs. 

Now, as to the mild cured — that is, the King salmon only — and the 
tax is doubled. That does not matter a great deal one way or the 
other. 

Frozen and fresh are largely locally consumed, the quantities are 
not very great, and the prices vary from very low to moderate, and 
most of those, I should think, could be exempted. Fertilizer and oil, 
save what I have already spoken of — those increases in the present 
bill, I should think, might stand. 

Mr. Wickersham. On fertilizer and oil ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. Under the present law on fish oil, for 1908 the 
amount of tax due was $586 and upon fertilizer $293. Under the 
provisions of my bill, that would be increased on fish oil to $2,256 
and on fertilizer to $734 — upon the total output as given by your 
report for 1908. r 

Mr. Marsh. That might be in the direction of taxing it out of 
existence, but that is what, we wish to do, in a way. because almost all 
the fish oil is from herring and salmon, and, as Judge Wickersham 
has stated, we desire to abolish that. 

The Chairman. For the benefit of members of the committee who 
may have come in since we discussed that, I would state that it has 
been suggested that the waste and offal might well be utilized for 
fertilizer and fish oil, and Mr. Marsh suggested that there should be 
no tax on such products, so that its use may be encouraged. 



14 FISHEEIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. I don't understand that the tax is to be taken 
off where they catch fish and make it into fertilizer and oil inde- 
pendently. 

The Chairman. No ; that which now goes to waste. 

Mr. Wickersham. I agree with him upon that. 

Mr. Marsh. Now, as to hatcheries, there seems to be a distinct pop- 
ular impression in Alaska that there is no check whatever on the 
actual performance by the packers' hatcheries of the planting of 
salmon fry, to which they make affidavit, and on which the packers 
secure a pro rata exemption from the taxes on their canned and cured 
product. It is sometimes averred that these plants are by affidavit 
only. There is no adequate basis for such a belief. The department 
knows the capacity of each hatchery and something of the run of 
salmon each season in the hatchery streams, and this alone would 
make wholesale frauds almost impossible. Moreover, it is inherently 
improbable that the hatcheries do not deposit all the fry their re- 
sources permit them to take as eggs and hatch from the run that 
comes within the reach of the hatcheries. 

They have the hatchery building and equipment, a force of men, 
and a run of spawning fish. It is hardly credible, then, that they 
should not take, incubate, and hatch the eggs that are at hand ; and, 
having done so, it is incredible that they should not plant the result- 
ing fry, since the tax exemption is not the only object of fry plant- 
ing. They have an obvious stake in the at present unknown percent- 
age of return in adult fish from the fry deposited. The large hatch- 
eries and most of the smaller ones do not usually report a take of 
eggs that would fill their capacities; their returns as to planted fry 
have been consistent with the known conditions, and there is every 
presumption that the purposes of the law have been carried out. 

That the inspection of these hatcheries and their output has not 
been as frequent and intimate as is desirable, for reasons that have 
been discussed here, and should be increased, is admitted on all 
hands. The defect is not of itself a sufficient reason for abolishing 
the exemption system and can easily be remedied. However, this 
rebate or exemption system is not itself a necessity to either the 
salmon industry or the fisheries and should not be regarded as a 
permanent feature. Some of the private hatcheries in Alaska pre- 
sumably were begun in an impossible attempt to obey an impossible 
law, or rather an executive regulation which went beyond the law. 

There is no obligation of law on the part of the packers to main- 
tain hatcheries, and, as the Government has by precedent and prac- 
tice looked after this method of fostering the fisheries, it is not un- 
reasonable to indirectly reimburse them through a pro rata tax ex- 
emption. But since this really puts the financial burden, as far as 
the exemption pays the expenses of the fish culture involved, back 
on the Government, there is no especial reason for the continuance 
of the system beyond temporary expediency. If the abolition of 
the exemption or rebate results in the suspension of operations on the 
part of the private hatcheries, the loss to propagation should be com- 
pensated in some way. They must then be taken over by the Gov- 
ernment if the establishments, useful only for fish culture, are not to 
go to waste. This would in fact be a logical outcome. 

It is perhaps not to be anticipated that individual packers would 
in the end continue to maintain occasional hatcheries as a contribu- 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 15 

tion to maintenance of the fisheries, since the product of a hatchery 
can insure only in part to its owners. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me ask you some questions right there. I 
understood Doctor Evermann to say that the general rule was that 
fish came back into the streams where they are hatched. Is that your 
belief? 

Mr. Marsh. No; we don't know how many. A certain part do 
and a part do not. 

Mr. Wickersham. If they do go back into the stream, why would 
it not pay the canneries to maintain the hatcheries ? 

Mr. Marsh. If they did come back it would, but suppose that half 
came back 

Mr. Wickersham. As you described in the Sacramento River, so 
many came back as to restock the stream and make it valuable. Why 
don't they do that up in Alaska ? 

Mr. Marsh. That is a great river that is isolated, while in Alaska 
there are a large number of small streams closely adjoining, and in 
western Alaska there are several very large streams within such dis- 
tances of each other that it is easily possible for the salmon to inter- 
change. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you been at the mouth of the Quiniault 
River, in Washington ? 

Mr. Marsh. No. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you know that the Quiniault salmon come 
back into one little stream? 

Mr. Marsh. I know it is supposed to. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is a peculiar variety of salmon, separate and 
apart from any other fish on the coast, is it not? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; it is so recognized locally. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have been there. The river is not over 150 
feet wide, it runs out on the sands of the ocean beach, and yet all of 
those fish are said to go right back to and into that little stream. 
Isn't that supposed to be true of all the streams in Alaska ? 

Mr. Marsh. No. sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. The fish do not all go back to the same streams 
in Alaska ? 

Mr. Marsh. No. sir; we know definitely that there are streams in 
which they do not. 

Doctor Evermann. May I say a word there in regard to the Quini- 
ault River? That is a very interesting and a very peculiar case. In 
order to understand it, it is necessarj 7 to bear in mind the fact that the 
red salmon, of which the Quiniault salmon is one, run only into such 
streams as have lakes at their headwaters. So far as I know, there 
is no exception to that rule. Now. the Quiniault River, on the west 
coast of the State of Washington, is the only river in that region of 
any size which has a lake at its head. There is a lake a little farther 
up. a small one (Ozette Lake) ; but south of the Quiniault the red 
salmon does not go. The Quiniault is about the southern limit of the 
red salmon's range. They have been taken very rarely down as far 
as Klamath River, and not south of that. I think in all the records 
only one red salmon has ever been taken in the Sacramento River, 
and he got in there probably by mistake ; he was out of his bailiwick. 
So the Quiniault River salmon will naturally return to that stream, 
because there is no other river within a reachable distance. In south- 



16 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

eastern Alaska there are so many similar streams close together that 
the red salmon hatched in Yes Bay, for instance, may return partly 
to Yes Bay and partly to some other stream within easy reach. Cap- 
tain Calbreath, who carried on the hatching operations for years at 
Etolin Island, was under the impression that salmon hatched in the 
stream will all get back there, but there has been no appreciable 
increase. 

The hatchery operations there did not amount to enough, and the 
fish scattered to the different streams. And I believe that it is the 
general opinion that in southeastern Alaska now the fish hatched by 
Captain Calbreath and the fish hatched by the various hatcheries 
have gone into other and different streams. 

The Chairman. The theory is that the Alaskan streams are so 
much more frequent that the fish does not distinguish closely, whereas 
farther south the streams are so far apart and the conditions so much 
different that the fish does discriminate. 

Doctor Evermann. On the Sacramento River it is Hobson's 
choice. That is the only stream. Upon the Quiniault it is Hobson's 
choice again, because it is the only stream of any size on that coast 
which has a lake at the head of it and into which the red salmon 
can go. 

The Chairman. As I understand you, the Quiniault variety always 
seeks the stream that has its source in a lake ? 

Mr. Marsh. All the red salmon do. 

The Chairman. That salmon takes its name from that river? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Doctor Evermann, do you know, as a matter of 
scientific fact, that any of the fry that you turn out ever come back 
to the stream from which they came ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. In what proportion do you know that to be a 
fact? 

Doctor Evermann. Mr. Chamberlain carried on an investigation 
for a year at the Naha stream. He marked a number of salmon 
there. In Mr. Chamberlain's report he gives the number of those 
marked fish which were again subsequently caught in the Naha stream 
or at Yes Bay, and some, perhaps, at other places. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, Mr. Calbreath, at Etolin Island, as you 
say, carried on these extensive investigations at his hatchery for 
years and found that there was no increase in his stream ? 

Doctor Evermann. Practically. 

Mr. Wickersham. All you do know about it now are these instances 
that Mr. Marsh is to give us soon ? 

The Chairman. Speaking from recollection of hearings conducted 
before this committee something like four years ago, I should say 
that scientific investigation has produced some change in the minds 
of the investigators. At that time I think the statement was made, 
somewhat sweepingly, to the effect that the fish did seek the parent 
stream. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think so. 

Doctor Evermann. I think that view was more largely held years 
ago by the fishermen themselves than it is now, but the students of 
fishes, as a rule, have not been strict adherents of the parent-stream 
theory ; not one of them, so far as I know. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IX ALASKA. 17 

Mr. Wickersham. The inquiry I want to present to the committee 
is whether it is a fact that these hatcheries do not amount to any- 
thing in Alaska, and the expense of maintaining them is a waste of 
so much money. 

Mr. Browne. That would be true of the public hatchery as well 
as the private. 

The Chairman. Every hatchery, I should think, that is located 
upon a stream, whether public or private, would tend to renew the 
supply. 

Mr. Wickersham. If the fish leave and get out into the ocean and 
thrive and grow. 

Mr. Marsh. Were all the packers in Alaska to combine and spread 
their efforts judiciously throughout the whole territory of the fish- 
eries they could realize results in proportion to their interests, but it 
does not seem likely that they will do this. The tendency will there- 
fore be to eventually bring the hatchery business entirely into the 
hands of the Government after the end of the exemption system. 

The question of the effectiveness of salmon hatcheries in general 
in Alaska, in maintaining the fisheries, is perhaps not especially in- 
volved in the present consideration, remembering that artificial prop- 
agation has elsewhere justified itself. But it may be here remarked 
that experimental investigations to measure the return from planted 
fish are urgently needed in Alaska. There is nothing wrong with 
the location of most of the hatcheries, nor in the choice of planting 
grounds, but the question of the proper age or size of fry when 
planted should be carefully examined. It is possible that a larger 
return will come from fewer fry planted after rearing to some size 
than from the millions now deposited in the earlier stages. 

The Chairman. Is that on the theory that when the fry is a little 
larger it is better able to take care of itself against its natural enemy? 

Mr. Marsh. That is one factor in it, at least. A comparison of 
the two methods can be made b} 7 marking, according to known 
means, the young salmon and identifying and counting the return 
of adults bearing the marks. Obviously several years are required 
for results. This need of such investigations is to some extent an 
argument for bringing all the hatcheries under government manage- 
ment, though not a controlling reason, for the private hatcheries 
have always been willing to cooperate. 

There must be a very considerable natural increment of salmon, 
and this annual increment may be taken by the industry without di- 
minishing the annual runs, and in the absence of artificial propaga- 
tion. In addition, the industry may take an additional quota from 
artificial propagation. The great fundamental trouble is that the 
product from neither of these sources is known with any accuracy. 
It is necessary to know these before legislation can conserve the 
fisheries save in a rough and temporary way. The bureau is carrying 
on, in conjunction with two of the packing companies, some inquiries 
in western Alaska, which, if continued, will throw some definite light 
on the natural rate of increase among red salmon. 

The Chairman. Will you please state how you can mark a fry? 

Mr. Marsh. A number of ways have been tried. 

Mr. Wickersham. You will find that upon page 57 of the fisheries 
report for 1908. 



18 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Marsh. I will turn to that page, then. Under that heading it 
speaks of branding fry. We have tried that, and it is unsuccessful. 
We can not mark the fish in that way because the brand disappears. 
We did that and found that as the fish grows the brand disappears. 
The other way is to mark the fins. If you cut or burn certain fins 
off of the young fish the fins will not grow again and the fish will 
come back adult with those fins missing. If you will burn or cut off 
such fins as the adult salmon hardly or never misses naturally, then 
you will have definite marks. And Mr. Chamberlain, a member of 
the bureau, at the Fortmann hatchery did that for several years on 
young salmon, not at the planting stage, but about three months 
older than the fish ordinarily planted. He cut, with scissors, the 
ventral fins under the belly, and we have a series of returns over, I 
think, four years from those fish. 

The Chairman. What is the customary time of the return ; the age? 

Mr. Marsh. They plant them at the feeding stage, and that may 
be several weeks, possibty a few months, old, but the fish has been 
living on the food sac and has only just become a fish ready to feed; 
he has never taken food. That is about the stage they plant them. 
It is about as small as a fish can be after the sac is absorbed. If you 
raise them, you have got to feed them, which involves an important 
problem in fish culture — the feeding and rearing on a large scale of 
an enormous quantity of young salmon. The salmon with these 
marks upon them have come back into the stream in which they were 
put, and also into another stream, Yes Lake, where the government 
hatchery is, about 40 miles away. We have no doubt of the identity 
of the returned fish, for they lack these fins, while salmon examined 
in regions in which no marks of any kind had been made never 
showed such marks. I think there is but one case known of the 
natural absence of both these fins. Therefore we think the marks 
certainly identify the fish. 

Now, we get from the result not very much on the per cent of 
return, because one year there was a report from Yes Bay of a con- 
siderable number of fish lacking these marks, but the specimens were 
not saved. We count none unless the specimens are saved so that we 
can have a chance to examine them. We are unable to examine prac- 
tically all of the fish that return, and probably a good many of those 
marked fish are consumed in canneries and the mark not noticed. 

Mr. Wickersham. You do not know that. 

Mr. Marsh. That must follow almost to a certainty. The way 
you do it is to make an experiment on a large scale, and immedi- 
ately after it is made follow it up in the region by having a systematic 
examination made every year at all of the hatcheries, and also at the 
canneries. They can examine thousands of them. You can do that. 
And if they do return you can get a large percentage of them, and 
in that way we can get some idea of the comparative merits of those 
two methods of planting. They propose to burn the fin off on the 
smaller fish. On the fry in the smaller stage we can cauterize the 
fin right off. 

Mr. Wickersham. Would that have an effect upon the salmon 
similar to burning babies' legs off, in respect to locomotion ? 

Mr. Marsh. No ; when you do this you lose a considerable number 
of the fry. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 19 

Mr. Wickersham. What I mean is, does it affect the power of 
the fish to live and swim? 

Mr. Marsh. If it is on the wrong fin, it does. We are going to 
do it on the adipose fin, which is of no use, and on the dorsal fin. It 
is well known that the adipose fin is of no use — that is, the fish can 
lose its dorsal and adipose fins with no bad results. 

The Chairman. By adipose, do you mean the ventral fin? 

Mr. Marsh. No; I mean the little fat fin on the back between the 
dorsal fin and the tail ; a little bit of a fatty remnant. It has been cut 
off by some cannery men upon the fry and small fish, and a return 
lias been claimed. But we don't attach a great deal of importance to 
that, because naturally that fin is often gone. 

Mr. Wickersham. As a matter of fact, you don't know much about 
whether any of these fish return or not, excepting in a small way? 

Mr. Marsh. Excepting on a small scale; but on that small scale 
we insist that we have absolutely identified them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, it is a question in fish culture whether the 
return amounts to much or not. 

Mr. Marsh. The great question is on the percentage of the return. 

The Chairman. Your inquiry. Judge, does not relate to fish, ex- 
cepting in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. My inquiry relates to the general conditions as 
to whether the small fry planted from the hatcheries return to the 
parent stream in such numbers as will justify the expenditure. 

The Chairman. It is said that outside of the Alaskan streams they 
generally do come back. 

Mr. Marsh. But we can not give the percentage of return. 

Now, Judge Wickersham mentioned the Karluk stream and hatch- 
ery the other day, whether it has depleted or not. 

Mr. Wickersham. I asked you about whether it was depleted or 
not. 

Mr. Marsh. Karluk is probably to some extent depleted. I think 
Judge Wickersham refers to the fact that the canneries were leaving 
there. There were several canneries there once, but in recent years 
not more than one or two, the rest lying idle. 

(Adjourned at 12 o'clock noon.) 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS 



RELATING TO 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS 
IN ALASKA 



STATEMENTS OF 

MR. MILLARD C. MARSH 

ALASKA SALMON AGENT, BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



DR. B. "W. EVERMANN 

BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



MAY 3, 1910 



SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



48684—10 6 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, May 3, 1910. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamil- 
ton (chairman) presiding. 

The chairman laid before the committee the following letter of the 
Attorney-General : 

Department of Justice, 
Washington, April 26, 1910. 
Hon. E. L. Hamilton, 

Chairman Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives. 
Sir: Complying with your request of April 20, 1910, I have the honor to herewith 
inclose a statement showing the amounts received as license taxes upon the output 
of canneries in Alaska for the years 1908 and 1909, including the amount of credit 
which each cannery was given for the "fry" released from its hatchery, in accordance 
with the provisions of the act of 1906. 

It may be stated that the figures given in the statement represent only the collec- 
tions for the respective years, and are without regard to the period or year of the output, 
i. e., the time the taxes or credits accrued. 

Respectfully, Geo. W. Wickersham, 

Attorney-General. 

Statement showing amount of license taxes on output of canneries and salteries in Alaska, 
also the amount of credit allowed thereon on account of "fry" released by such as main- 
tain hatcheries, for the years 1908 and 1909. 



Northwestern Fisheries Co., cannery 

Alaska Packers Association, cannery 

North Pacific Trading and Packing* Co., cannery. 

Knutson Bros. , cannery 

Pacific American Fisheries Co., cannery 

Yakutat and Southern Ry. Co., cannery 

F. C. Barnes, cannery 

Pacific Fisheries Co. , cannery 

William Duncan, cannery 

Pacific Coast and Norway Packing Co., cannery.. 

Porter Fish Co. , cannery". 

Shakan Salmon Co. , cannery 

Geo. T. Meyers Co., cannery 

Thlinket Packing Co., cannery 

Columbia Canning Co., cannery 

Pillar Packing Co. , cannery 

Fidalgo Island Packing Co. , cannery 

C. A . Burckhardt & Co. , cannery 

Yes Bay Canning Co. , cannery 

Alaska-Portland Packing Co., cannery 

Northwestern Packing Co. , cannery 

Columbia River Packing Co., cannery 



License taxes collected. 



Credit allowed on 
count of "fry" 



1908. 



$30, 
39, 
3, 



. IN! I 

180 

. 204 



$10, C24. 56 
38,512.38 
4,423.32 



5,572.00 



569. 16 
2,266.30 

1,383.00 
1,777.68 
3,846.60 
2,926.76 
1,098.32 
1,336.32 



1.26.S.S8 
2.282.84 



$6, 917. 48 

38, 272. 32 

1,964.64 



1909. 



$29,668.80 
1,280.00 



4 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Statement showing amount of license taxes on output of canneries and salteries in Alaska, 
also the amount of credit allowed thereon on account of "fry" released by such as main- 
tain hatcheries, for the years 1908 and 1909 — Continued. 



License taxes collected. 



1909. 



Credit allowed on ac- 
count of "fry" re- 
leased. 



1908. 



1909. 



Naknek Packing Co., cannery 

W. C. Waters, saltery 

International Fisheries Co., saltery) 

Ole Knutson, saltery 

H. Bergman, saltery 

C. H. Gallagher, saltery 

Alex. S. Miller, saltery 

Knute Hange, saltery 

Gunerius Enge, saltery 

James Thompson, saltery 

Rasmus Enge, saltery 

Alaska Salt Fish Co. , saltery 

Fred Brockman, saltery 

Peter Somers, saltery 

John Mantel, saltery 

J. B. Alter, saltery 

Louis Perterson, saltery 

Marcus Nelson, saltery 

H. E. Heckman, saltery 

A. E. King, saltery 

Globe Fishing and Packing Co., saltery. 

W. H. Lewis, saltery 

C. M. Coulter, saltery 

Huno Hager, saltery 

S. C. Robertson, saltery 

Levi Dobbins, saltery 

K. J. Johanson, saltery 

Foss & Skogland, saltery 

Harry Appledorn, saltery 

Engle Wiese, saltery 

J. B . Lindenberger, saltery 

W. A. Thompson, saltery 

Dick Thompson, saltery 

Jack Hadland, saltery 

Peter Korgenson, saltery 

E. L. Skog, saltery 

Chas. L. Olson, saltery 

John Jenson & Co., saltery 

Malcolm Campbell, saltery 

Craig Miller, saltery 

J. T. Field, saltery 

John B. Barnovich, saltery 

Henry Imhoff , saltery : 

Michael E. Lane, saltery 

A. H. Sousthagen, saltery 

Alaska American Fish Co., saltery 

L. A. Pederson, saltery 

Blodget & Blinn, saltery 

Alaska Commercial Co., saltery 

San Juan Fish and Packing Co., saltery. 
John L. Carlson: 

Cannery 

Saltery 

Alaska Oil and Guano Co.: 

Fish oil works 

Fertilizer 

Saltery 

Tyee Co.: 

Saltery 

Fertilizer plant 



,083.00 

34.70 

33.40 

8.90 

253. 20 



92.40 

69.50 

25.20 

39. 60 

21.40 

26.80 

53.80 

5.40 

8.00 

10.00 

227.90 

41.60 

15.30 

10.00 

28.00 

3.00 

3.00 

34.80 

1.70 

10.60 

107. 20 



9.20 
3.20 
11.20 
7.40 
4.40 
1.70 
9.70 



110. 00 
33.60 
79.40 



1,098.28 
103. 20 

273. 00 

187. 00 

7.50 



Total. 



105, 466. 64 



79.20 
6.40 

12.00 
8.00 
3.00 



39.00 



27.00 



2.50 

12.40 

10.00 

189. 40 



64.00 



48.00 
1.50 
3.00 
4.00 
4.50 
5.00 
40.00 
50.00 



352. 00 



1,349.14 



461.00 
231.00 



2.60 
144. 00 

81, 309. 16 



S47, 154. 44 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 5 

STATEMENT OF MR. M. C. MARSH, OF THE BUREAU OF FISH- 
ERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 

Mr. Marsh. Mr. Chairman, the taxation schedule you requested 
me to prepare a statement on I will submit, but saying at the same 
time that in preparing it we do not assume to determine, necessarily, 
just what the tax should be; but we think that this is a tax on the 
industry which is certainly not excessive. 

Mr. Wickersham. What tax is that ? 

Mr. Marsh. This is a schedule for all the products. This is the 
proposed schedule. 

The Chairman. Does that also show the present taxes ? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; it does not; but you have that information 
available here in a number of ways. 

The Chairman. It occurred to me that perhaps if it could be 
arranged so as to show the present taxes in juxtaposition with the 
proposed taxes that might be very convenient. 

Mr. Marsh. That would be very easy to do. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Proposed taxes on products of Alaskan fisheries . 



Product. 



Canned salmon: 

King 

Red 

Coho 

Humpback. . 

Dog 

Pickled salmon: 

King, whole . 



Red, whole 

Coho, whole 

Humpback, whole. 

Dog, whole 

King, bellies 

Red, bellies 

Coho, bellies 

Humpback, bellies. 

Dog, bellies 

All species, backs 

Dry salted salmon 

Smoked salmon 

Mild cured salmon 

Fresh fish: 

King salmon 

Halibut 

Frozen fish 

Fertilizer: 

Herring 

Salmon 

Whole 

Fish refuse , 

Oil: 

Herring 



Salmon 

Whale 

Fish refuse . 
Whalebone 



Value in 
1909. 



$207,624 
7,610,550 

231,029 
1,114,839 

274,110 



167,298 
2,485 
9,447 
190 
175 
13,902 
3,843 
7,396 



224 

4,479 

3,223 

149,300 

39,707 
178,761 
17,343 

30,713 

2,287 
16,518 



42,827 



3,216 
102,050 



87.324 



Present tax. 



Proposed tax. 



4 cents per case . 

do 

do 

do 

do 



5 cents per hundred- 
weight. 
....do 



.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 



20 cents per ton . 

do 

do 

do 



10 cents per barrel. 



.do. 

.do. 
.do. 



5 cents per case. 

Do. 

Do. 
3 cents per case. 

Do. 

5 cents per hundred- 
weight. 



Do. 
Do. 
Do. 



Do. 



Do. 
Do. 



50 cents per ton. 
Do. 
Do. 



10 cents per hundred- 
weight. 
Do. 
Do. 

1 cent per pound. 



6 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Marsh. A statement concerning gear is about all that I have 
to submit directly, and I will give you that. 

The law can not, I think, accomplish anything of importance, as 
far as conserving the salmon fisheries is concerned, by abolishing any 
form of present gear or restricting it in any radical way beyond what 
the present law provides directly and indirectly through the power 
lodged with the Secretary to restrict fishing in and about streams. 
The area off the mouths of streams over which the Secretary has power 
might be increased somewhat, but sweeping prohibitions against 
traps or any other form of gear in use is not clearly demanded at 
present, and though conceivably it may be shown to be so in the 
future, I do not think it likely. A plain alternative would be the 
lengthening of the close season. There is probably at present in 
Alaska a slowly declining salmon fishery, but it is very difficult to 
make laws which shall, by the methods of restriction at present avail- 
able, exactly maintain the fishery at its maximum. In fact, it prob- 
ably can not be done. If all traps should be abolished and the fish 
could not in certain sections be caught sufficiently in some other way, 
some would go to waste, for there is surely a natural increment which 
should be taken. If, on the other hand, other gear takes as many as 
the traps formerly did, it comes to the same thing in either case. The 
best way theoretically would be, for the red salmon, to count the 
proper number as they go up stream to the spawning grounds, and 
then barricade the stream and let the fishermen have all the rest that 
come. But at present we do not, save very roughly, know how many 
to let go up. The time will probably come when this information will 
be available. 

Mr. Humphreys. Is it practicable to count them as they go up ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; in many streams it certainly is, and very easy. 
The only question is on the very largest streams, and there it is more 
difficult. It is probably not impossible in any of them. 

Mr. Humphreys. How do you do it ? 

Mr. Marsh. Put a barricade across the stream with gates in it, and 
have gates enough to release a large run, and have men there with 
tallying machines and tally each individual. It is merely counting 
the fish. 

Mr. Humphreys. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Marsh. Mr. Chairman, I think I can offer nothing else directly, 
but I am ready to answer any questions, so far as I am able, that you 
wish to put. 

The Chairman. Do you desire to proceed, Mr. Humphreys ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I have not been here at former hearings, and 
probably the questions I would ask are already in the hearings. What 
becomes of the salmon after they spawn ? 

Mr. Marsh. They all die. 

Mr. Humphreys. They die ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir; and the natural rate of increase has to take 
care of that. 

Mr. Humphreys. About how long is it after they spawn before 
they die ? 

Mr. Marsh. It is a matter of a few daj^s; nobody knows just how 
long. Some of them die very soon, but no doubt some of them live 
a few days. I think if you said a few days you would come pretty 
close to it. It can not be very long, because on the spawning grounds, 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 7 

at the end of the season, you will find them piled up everywhere, 
and it is considered by everybody — -fishermen and everyone who 
knows about the salmon — to be an established fact that the salmon 
die; that is, the Pacific salmon only. 

Mr. Humphreys. What? 

Mr. Marsh. The Atlantic salmon does not die. 

Mr. Humphreys. Does not die I 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; does not die after once spawning. The Atlan- 
tic salmon spawns a number of times. 

Mr. Wickersham. A number of years ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; a number of years. 

Mr. Humphreys. What is the condition of these salmon on the 
spawning ground ; are they in healthy condition so far as being made 
food of is concerned ? 

Mr. Marsh. Oh, yes. They turn red. The canners get them 
before they turn red. Every once in a while, though, you will see, 
among cannery fish, a fish that is taking on the spawning color. 

Mr. Humphreys. Does that mean the fish is in a healthy condition, 
or not ? 

Mr. Marsh. Oh, yes. As the process goes on, as they approach 
sexual maturity, they deteriorate; the oil goes out of them and they 
get thin. They are still wholesome. I have eaten spent fish, spent 
salmon, and they are all right. The Indian prefers that kind. 

Mr. Humphreys. What is spent salmon ? 

Mr. Marsh. Salmon which has deposited all its eggs or all its milt; 
which lias finished the process of spawning. They are wholesome 
food, but no cannery man cares to can them. There is nothing of 
them. 

The Chairman. That seems to be the process of nature; they have 
apparently accomplished their purpose of existence in that they have 
reproduced themselves, and they must die. 

Mr. Marsh. Exactly ; like some plants. 

The Chairman. Is there any other fish like the Pacific salmon in 
that respect ? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know of any other. Professor Evermann, 
is there any other? 

Doctor Evermann. The lamprey eels. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; the lamprey eels. 

Doctor Evermann. The little ayu, the dwarf salmon of Japan, as 
it is called, also dies after once spawning. It is not a salmon, but it 
belongs to the same family as the salmon. 

The Chairman. What is the spawning age of the salmon? 

Mr. Marsh. That is a great question, Mr. Chairman. We have, 
for the red salmon, some quite definite data from experiments, which 
indicate that some come back the third year after they are hatched, 
most of them the fourth and fifth years, but some of them even the 
sixth year, and possibly some still later. 

The Chairman. Is this process of maturity hastened bv the food 
that they eat? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir: they do not feed after they get in the vicinity 
of the spawning ground, usually in fresh water. 

The Chairman. What I mean is this: Suppose s&lmon should feed 
in a certain locality. Would those salmon mature most rapidly on 
that account? 



8 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Marsh. We do not know anything about the localities they do 
feed in. 

The Chairman. There must be some reason why some salmon 
mature more rapidly than others. It occurred to me that it must be 
the environment of some of this particular species. This is the Pacific 
salmon we are talking about ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. I do not know that they mature at particularly 
different rates. 

The Chairman. I thought you said some at three and four and some 
at four and five years. 

Mr. Marsh. Oh, I see what you mean; that is, all of the same 
species. What controls that we do not know, of course. 

The Chairman. That is what I asked. 

Mr. Marsh. We consider that to be a natural variation, the same 
sort of variation there is in the age at which persons arrive at matur- 
ity. The variation is much wider in the fish. It is well known in 
other fish to vary very greatly. You can say there is a natural 
variation in the period of sexual maturity. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, I think that the last time the repre- 
sentatives of the Bureau of Fisheries were before this committee it 
was stated that science had no knowledge of where these fish go 
after they leave the parent stream, after they arrive at the fingerling 
stage. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Has that been ascertained since % 

Mr. Marsh. I think not, sir. 

The Chairman. They disappear in the deep sea % 

Mr. Marsh. They are supposed to go out in the sea, because you 
can not find them anywhere. 

The Chairman. Yes. Do sailors discover them near the surface, 
anywhere \ 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; it has never been known; it has never been 
reported, I think. However, they do not go around fishing very 
much at the surface or in the depths for that sort of fish. It might be 
in part because they have not looked for them in the right places. 
For instance, some think in Alaska that the salmon really do not go 
far from the coast, that they go out in the depths of the channels 
where nobody goes to find them; but it is not so easy to get them, 
anyway, and possibly if one fished for them at the right time and with 
the right apparatus, he would find them in close proximity to Alaska, 
and spending the winter there and maturing. But you can say very 
little definitely about that. 

The Chairman. To return to the subject of gear. Judge Wicker- 
sham in his bill provides as follows: 

For each stake trap, floating trap, fish wheel, or other mechanical device for catch- 
ing food fish in the tidal waters of Alaska, or in any of the streams emptying into 
Bristol Bay or the Pacific Ocean waters, one hundred dollars. 

Have you any comment to make upon that tax ? That is a sugges- 
tion of new law, I take it. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir; no gear is taxed now. 

The Chairman. What do you say as to that ? 

Mr. Marsh. Well, if gear is going to be taxed, of course the trap 
is a big and important piece of gear, and it should be taxed if any 
gear should bear a tax; and traps when they make a big and success- 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 9 

ful catch make lots of money for the industry. But I do not see 
why you should put a tax on the gear at all. If you want to raise so 
much money, you might as well put the tax on the product. It will 
be easier to collect, for one thing. 

The Chairman. That would centralize it. 

Mr. Marsh. It centralizes it, and it is automatic. For instance, 
if you do not make a pack, you do not have to pay a tax. Sometimes 
they do not make much' of a pack. 

Mr. Good. Why should they escape taxation; on what theory? 

Mr. Marsh. I say I think the tax should be put upon the pack. In 
either case it comes out of these companies. Whether you tax the 
gear or the product, the companies pay for it. 

The Chairman. So that your idea would be to tax the product 
sufficiently to make an adequate tax on all the instrumentalities ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Good. I supposed that the tax on the product was in the main 
to guarantee a fund to replenish the streams with fish. That was 
one of the objects, was it not ? 

Mr. Marsh. Part of that fund now does go for that purpose in the 
form of these exemptions which have been discussed here; but the 
rest of it is tax that goes to the Government. Now, if you determine 
to put the proper amount of tax, the amount that is just for this 
industry to bear, you can either spread it out over the product or put 
it on the gear, or both. I do not pretend to any special knowledge of 
the proper methods of taxation. 

Mr. Good. I notice they had $6,682,661 invested in the shore and 
accessory property. I understand that does not pay any tax to the 
Territory or to the Government ? 

Mr. Marsh. Your idea is that, in addition to whatever they pay on 
other grounds on the product, they should pay a tax on that ? 

Mr. Good. I was wondering on what theory that escaped taxation. 
Property in a State or in a municipality, no matter whether it is earn- 
ing anything or not, is taxed, and must pay for the protection which 
it, with other property, receives. I was wondering on what theory 
any property of this kind in the Territory of Alaska should escape 
taxation. 

Mr. Marsh. On the theory that I have mentioned. It would not 
essentially escape taxation. It is just a matter of the way you look 
at it. You make out your schedule on the gear and see what it will 
amount to. Now, if you transfer it from the gear to the product 
you are going to get the mone}', and the same person is going to pay 
it. The gear does not pay it, but the person who owns that gear; 
and the money would come, anyway. 

Mr. Lloyd. So that your idea is that, instead of paying the tax on 
the buildings of a farm, it would be just as well to pay on the prod- 
ucts of the farm a greater tax than they now pay ? That would be 
the same principle, would it not? 

Mr. Marsh. This speaks in no case of permanent improvements on 
shore. It speaks of the gear they use on the water and vessels. 
But that is the principle. 

Mr. Lloyd. You mean there are no shore investments at all ? 

Mr. Marsh. No; but there is none taxed or proposed to be taxed, 
is there? 



10 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am going to propose it before we finish. In 
the present bill there is no shore property proposed to be taxed, but 
I intend to ask the committee to include it in taxation. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you think that the shore property ought to be 
taxed ? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; it did not occur to me that it should. 

Mr. Lloyd. Why not ? 

Mr. Marsh. Merely because the purpose of taxing the shore prop- 
erty can be accomplished by taxing the product, and it would seem 
to me more easily. But, as I say, taxation is not a subject that I 
know anything especially about. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt you long enough to ask Judge 
Wickersham one question ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Judge Wickersham, how is real estate taxed in 
Alaska ? What is the system of taxation ? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no taxation upon real estate except in 
the incorporated towns. There it is taxed by the town council, just 
as it is everywhere else, by levying a certain rate upon the assessed 
valuation of the property. 

The Chairman. Then there is no taxation system except a license 
system outside of incorporated towns and a corporation tax inside 
of incorporated towns ? 

Mr. Lloyd. There is a license outside and inside. 

Mr. Wickersham. I can tell you in a moment what the situation is. 

The Chairman. I wish you would. 

Mr. Wickersham. In the incorporated towns the town council 
levies a tax on the assessed valuation of real estate. We do not have 
any titles to the real estate ; we only have a possessory right ; but this 
tax is based on the valuation of our lots, and the improvements are 
all taxed upon a certain rate. Congress has also put a tax upon 
certain lines of occupation in the towns, and that occupation or trade 
tax in incorporated towns is also paid to the towns. Outside of the 
incorporated towns, under a statute of the United States, certain 
occupations are taxed, but no real estate, no personal property. 
There is no taxation outside of incorporated towns in Alaska, except 
on occupations and trades. 

The Chairman. Now, among the occupations specified, fisheries 
are not included ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; fisheries are included. 

The Chairman. Do you recall what the tax is ? 

Mr. Wickersham. A very small tax — 4 cents per case. 

The Chairman. That is the tax you seek to change here % 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; by increasing it to 5 cents. 

Mr. Good. Mr. Marsh, the value of the fish product for the year 
1908 was $11,847,443. How much tax was collected by the Govern- 
ment for the fish taken out of the waters during that year % 

Mr. Marsh. One hundred and one thousand dollars, minus the tax 
exemption. 

Mr. Good. What was the exemption ? 

Mr. Marsh. Twenty-nine thousand dollars and something. No; 
that is in 1909. The Bureau of Fisheries is not charged with the 
collection of these taxes. The clerk of the court receives them, so 
that we have not been in the habit of including such statistics, but in 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 11 

the report for the succeeding year there is a separate statement of it. 
On page 31 of the report for the year 1909, you see, it is a little over 
$100,000, and then the exemption amounted to about $30,000, and 
that taken out left about $70,000 coining to the Government from 
these fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. On a catch of fish valued at $12,000,000 ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; pretty nearly. 

Mr. Good. The value of the equipment employed in the fishing 
business and the catch together amount to about $22,000,000 for that 
year. I was computing the amount of the fish produced that year, 
1908, and I find that your computation is on a basis of about 5.4 
cents a pound for the salmon you report in the catch for that year. 

Mr. Marsh. All the salmon ? 

Mr. Good. Yes; you give the quantity as 217,813,415 pounds. 
That is the amount of the catch. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; that is not all fish. A lot of that is various mis- 
cellaneous products, as you •will see. 

Mr. Good. Is there any of that fish that would sell for less in the 
retail market than 10 cents a pound ? 

Mr. Marsh. In the retail market ? 

Mr. Good. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Mr. Good. What proportion, and at what price would it sell ? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know. I have no doubt the dry-salted salmon 
and some of the pickled salmon would sell at less than 10 cents a 
pound. Those are the cheapest products of the cuced salmon. 

Mr. Good. Do you know what the}* sell for? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know the retail prices of them; no, sir. You 
can see, though, that a lot of them at wholesale are only a cent a 
pound; quite a little of it is only a cent a pound, and that would get 
on the market at retail at less than 5 cents a pound ; some of it surely 
would. 

Mr. Good. You do not know what proportion of that cheaper 
grade is* included in this report? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know the per cent, but you can see it right 
there in this table. You can see how much there is, if you will run 
up the columns. It is not large. 

Mr. Wickersham. Take the year 1909; that will be on page 10? 

Mr. Marsh. You will find under "dry salted," on page 10, several 
fines from the top of the page, five items. That gives the number of 
pounds. 

Mr. Good. That is very limited in amount. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; it is a minor matter. The canned salmon is 
almost the whole thing. 

Mr. Good. It seemed to me there was a great difference between 
the value, as you placed it in your report, about 5 cents a pound, and 
the amount that Doctor Evermann testified the other day that 
salmon sold for on the retail market, some grades 20 cents, or even 
25 cents a pound. 

. Mr. Marsh. You see, he was talking about the best grades of 
salmon, which bring the very best prices. Some grades bring 10 
cents a pound canned, and I believe salmon has been sold for less than 
10 cents a can, some of the poorest grades. 



12 FISHERIES AND QTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Lloyd. How do you determine the value here, in the state- 
ment you make ? Take page 20 of this report, how do you ascertain 
the value ? 

Mr. Marsh. Which report have you; that for 1909 ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That for 1909. 

Mr. Marsh. You refer to the comparisons of values ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. Those are the wholesale prices. 

Mr. Lloyd. Wholesale prices where ? 

Mr. Marsh. Reported by the packers. The packers have to make 
sworn reports of their pack. When they do so, on a blank, to which 
report they swear, they include the value. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is the value at the plant, or where ? 

Mr. Marsh. That is the value at the port on the coast of the United 
States — San Francisco, Seattle, Astoria. Puget Sound, Astoria, San 
Francisco, and Portland will take about all of it. 

Mr. Lloyd. It is the wholesale value at those ports ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And not the retail value ? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; not the retail value. 

Mr. Wickersham. I should like to ask Mr. Marsh some questions. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Judge Wickersham. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you know anything about where the fisher- 
men come from who do fishing in Ala ka ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir; there are big gangs taken up by these com- 
panies. . 

Mr. Wickersham. Where from? 

Mr. Marsh. From these cities I have just named. They take 
them up there. 

Mr. Wickersham. What proportion of the men are taken up from 
San Francisco and Seattle and Astoria ? 

Mr. Marsh. I think almost all of them. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many of them are Chinese and Japanese? 
They are shown, are they not, in your tables ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; a very large proportion, and you can pick them 
out from the report. 

Mr. Wickersham. And who are the other men who are taken? 
What class of men are they? 

Mr. Marsh. There are a great many Italians and a great many 
Scandinavians. That takes the bulk of the men, I think. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where are they engaged during the rest of the 
year, when they are not at work in the Alaska trade ? 

Mr. Marsh. I am mostly familiar with those that go to western 
Alaska, and they come mainly out of San Francisco; and what they 
do the rest of the year I can not tell you. 

Mr. Wickersham. What proportion of all these men come from 
San Francisco, including Chinese, Japanese, and the men mentioned ? 

Mr. Marsh. For all Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; for all of Alaska. 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know. 

Mr. Wickersham. What is your best judgment about it ? 

Mr. Marsh. Just take the companies which originate in San Fran- 
cisco and you could get a verv good idea from that. There are some 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 13 

big companies that go up there from San Francisco and nearly all of 
their men must come from San Francisco. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. There is one company from Seattle. In western 
Alaska the red-salmon fishery preponderates very greatly, so that 
you can see that San Francisco furnishes a good deal more than half, 
I think, of all those numbers. 

Mr. Wickersham. San Francisco, Portland, and Astoria, possibly 
three-quarters ? 

Mr. Marsh. I should think more. 

Mr. Wickersham. More than three-quarters ? And Seattle the 
remainder ? 

Mr. Marsh. No. I thought you meant 

Mr. Wickersham. I mean of those who go north to fish. 

Mr. Marsh. San Francisco, Portland, and Astoria, three-quarters; 
but Seattle has a good many. Include Seattle, and it assuredly 
would be three-quarters, I should think. 

Mr. Wickersham. And where do the rest of them come from ? 

Mr. Marsh. In southeastern Alaska a good many local Indians, 
and some, of course, white men. 

Mr. Wickersham. What proportion of the fishermen who are 
engaged in the fishing business, which you have reported in these 
fisheries reports for 1908 and 1909, live in Alaska? 

Mr. Marsh. Very few. 

Mr. Wickersham. Five per cent ? 

Mr. Marsh. Let us see; you say live in Alaska and have their 
homes there the year around ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. I do not believe it would be 5 per cent. That is just 
a rough estimate. 

Mr. Wickersham. When do they go into Alaska in the spring for 
fishing purposes; these men we have been talking about? 

Mr. Marsh. From San Francisco they will leave, I guess, all of them 
in April. 

Mr. Wickersham. I wish you would describe to this committee 
the circumstances of their going to Alaska; how they go; who takes 
them there ? 

Mr. Marsh. They send nearly all the fishermen on the ships. 

Mr. Wickersham. What ships? 

Mr. Marsh. On the cannery ships that carry the supplies and gear, 
and everything that the cannery will have to use. They take them 
up on the ship, and she starts out ahead of the steamer. The steamer 
carries the superintendents and office force and some men and cargo. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let us go up to the cannery in Alaska, now. 
What has been done there all winter ? 

Mr. Marsh. There has not been anything done in the winter. The 
cannery has been in charge of one man who takes charge in the win- 
ter. I do not know of anything at all going on there in the winter, 
except that there is a store near a good many of these canneries. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is nobody living there ? . 

Mr. Marsh. There are usually a few white men and a few coming 
in from the surrounding country. 

Mr. Wickersham. But the number of local residents would be 
very small ? 



14 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is this store you speak of generally controlled by 
the canning company? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. Stores at canneries where there is no village 
run really only in the summer, while the cannery force is there, and 
they would not do any business in the winter, I think, at all. But 
where there are a number of canneries in a locality, on the same bay, 
there are usually traders' stores, and they would be doing something 
in the winter — buying furs, for instance. 

Mr. Wickersham. You say these ships and boats go up there in 
April I 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. What time do they reach the canneries ? 

Mr. Marsh. It sometimes takes a ship fifty days. That is a pretty 
long passage. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. A month is pretty fair. 

Mr. Wickersham. When do the steamers start ? 

Mr. Marsh. Take the biggest company out of San Francisco, 
that steamer has just started a few days ago. 

Mr. Wickersham. About the 1st of May? 

Mr. Marsh. About the 1st of May, and it takes her about two 
weeks to get up there. 

Mr. Wickersham. What do they do when these ships and boats 
get up there ? Explain to the committee, if you will, what they do. 

Mr. Marsh. Things get busy immediately. They haul off the 
ways the vessels and small boats and launches that have been hauled 
out for the winter, and get steam up and get them in shape. In 
fact, the winter man usually has that attended to, and they are in the 
water when the ships and steamers arrive, and they begin to unload 
things and get everything in its proper place. 

Mr. Wickersham. What kind of supplies do they bring? 

Mr. Marsh. Provisions will be an enormous amount of the cargo 
for the whole force which comes up and has got. to go back. 

Mr. Wickersham. Does the cannery maintain a mess house and 
board the men ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir; usually. Now, among the Italians it is 
different. At the canneries that I am familiar with the Italians 
sometimes prefer to have a mess of their own on account of the 
peculiar food they wish to eat. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, the boats or ships get there and they 
unload and get their mess house started and get the men out with 
the gear, and so forth, and then what do they do? 

Mr. Marsh. The gangs get the traps in so that they will be ready, 
and the nets are all overhauled and mended, and the fishing boats 
are repaired and painted, and they draw lots for the crews that are 
to go with the boats, and they get everything ready, so that early in 
June they put them in the water — that is, in western Alaska 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr Marsh (continuing) . And set out after the fish ; they set out 
to meet the fish, so that they will be fishing when the first stragglers 
come. 

Mr. Wickersham. When do they begin to come? 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 15 

Mr. Marsh. In western Alaska the kino; salmon, which support a 
small fishery, begin to come early in June. The boats will begin to 
catch king salmon, and they will fish for the king salmon, and a little 
later, about the middle of June, the red fish commence to conic, and 
by the last of June the red fish strike in strong, and they cease fishing 
for king salmon and devote all their attention to the red salmon. 

Mr. Wickersham. You speak of the boats going out and fishing for 
these fish. Do they take-nets out and fish for them in the ocean ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, they go outside of the bay. Take Nushagak Bay, 
which is a big bay several miles across at its mouth, they go clear out 
into Bristol Bay and begin to fish. They go out of sight of land some- 
times. They go right out in the salt water. Some lives are lost every 
year; it is very dangerous at times. They go out of sight of land to 
meet the fish. 

As soon as a fishing boat, which carries two men, gets a load of 
fish they set sail for the tally scow, which is up the bay somewhere, 
and they unload their fish and tally them in ami then go right back 
and commence to fish again. The fisherman has all his provisions 
in the boat, and seldom goes ashore except perhaps to get a night's 
rest and his provisions. 

Mr. Wickersham. How are those men paid ? 

Mr. Marsh. They are paid according to the fish that they catch, 
except that they get also what they call "run money," as they put 
it; $50 for the trip up and back. Then they get so much for the 
fish they catch. 

Mr. "Wickersham. How are the men in the canneries paid ( 

Mr. Marsh. They are paid wages. 

Mr. Wickersham. So much for the season ? 

Mr. Marsh. I think so. 

Mr. Wickersham. How much are they paid a season ? 

Mr. Marsh. I can not give you a very definite idea about the wages 
they pay. 

Mr. Wickersham. For the Japanese and Chinese? 

Mr. Marsh. Oh, the Japanese and Chinese? No; they are paid 
according to the pack they make. They hire a crew, say, of Japa- 
nese and Chinese 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, let us start in at the beginning of that. 
Who hires that crew? 

Mr. Marsh. The canning company or packing company. 

Mr. Wickersham. With whom do they deal among the Chinese ? 

Mr. Marsh. With the Chinese boss, who does all the business for 
the body of Chinamen who are going up there. They draw up a 
contract with them. He does all the business with the Chinamen. 

Mr. Wickersham. The boss agrees to furnish so many Chinamen ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And they agree to pay so much for each 
Chinaman ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you know how much that is ? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know. I have never looked into that. I 
can not tell you. 

Mr. Wickersham. About $150 for the season? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know. 



16 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, you say there are Japanese, too ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; they are coming in of late years and displacing 
the Chinese. They manage them on the same plan, I think. There 
are some Japanese that fish for themselves in southeastern Alaska; 
very few of them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then they begin to fish and can the salmon in 
Alaska ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. How long after the fish begin to run, in June ? 

Mr. Marsh. You are going back now to western Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. They will run at the most about thirty days. They 
will be fishing sometimes the first week in August, but thirty days of 
good fishing is more than they usually get. Often two weeks of a 
steady run is all they get, of hard fishing, and the rest of the time 
they are what they call " scraping/' getting only a few fish. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is that about the length of the fishing season at 
all the canneries? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir. Take central Alaska, they get about three 
months, and in southeastern Alaska the season is a good three months 
long. They get to fishing in June, and they are still fishing in 
September. 

The Chairman. Are the fish as abundant where the fishing season 
is longer ? 

Mr. Marsh. The red salmon is not. In southeastern Alaska it is 
not nearly so abundant as the humpback. The inferior species is 
much more abundant. 

Mr. Wickersham. The whole salmon pack is put up in that thirty 
days? 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir; that is in western Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Marsh. In western Alaska you can say that the whole salmon 
pack is up in about thirty days. It will run over that in the actual 
days from the opening to the closing of the cannery when they are 
doing hardly anything. In central Alaska two months, and in south- 
eastern Alaska they will run three months. 

Mr. Wickersham. The whole salmon pack in Alaska, then, is put 
up within that thirty days in western Alaska and in about from three 
to four months in southern Alaska ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then what becomes of these men that have gone 
north to the canneries ? 

Mr. Marsh. They carry them back the same way that they brought 
them up. They clean the place out, and there is nothing left, and it is 
in the same condition as it was in the spring before they came up. 

Mr. Wickersham. With just one man left to watch the cannery ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. So that in western Alaska there is a watchman 
for eleven months in the year, and 10,000 or 12,000 men for thirty 
days? 

Mr. Marsh. No; you see the men are there from, say, May until 
August. That is three or four months. Then the trip is long, and 
the time covered by the service of the men may be six months. The 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 17 

trip of the vessel might occupy two months, but they are doing 
nothing then. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to ask you about another matter. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. There are other fish in Alaska besides the 
salmon ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Take western Alaska, what other food fishes are 
there ? 

Mr. Marsh. What other food fishes which are commercial ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; or which can be made commercial? 

Mr. Marsh. Speaking of the whole of Alaska, and not the inshore 
waters ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. The cod and halibut. 

Mr. Wickersham. What sort of cod is that? Have you any facts 
in relation to it, or any information about it ? 

Mr. Marsh. If you saw it, you would not know if from the Atlantic 
cod? 

Mr. Wickersham. How does it compare with the Atlantic cod in 
its food qualities ? 

Mr. Marsh. I suppose that the eastern cod fishermen consider it is 
not quite as good: 

Mr. Wickersham. How do you consider it ? 

Mr. Marsh. We consider it usually about the same. You would 
not know them apart. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where are the cod banks in those waters ? 

Mr. Marsh. In western Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. There is a cod fishery there every year. I know when 
we go in there in the spring we always pass a number of cod fishermen, 
a large vessel lying at anchor, and her dories out fishing. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is there a large value of cod in those waters ? < 

Mr. Marsh. No, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. To what extent is there any value there ? I do 
not have reference to your figures of what they catch, but what is 
there there to catch ? 

Mr. Marsh. They are there just what they do catch. 

Mr. Wickersham. And how many more ? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not know. Cod are on the bottom. You never 
see them until you catch them. 

Mr. Wickersham. What do you know about the cod fisheries of 
Alaska, except what is in your reports ? 

Mr. Marsh. Practically nothing. 

Mr. Wickersham. Why; because you have not made an examina- 
tion of the matter ? 

Mr. Marsh. Oh, yes ; that is the reason. It is not true that we have 
not made any examinations. Those banks that are on the maps were 
charted years ago, by the Fish Commission steamer Albatross. 

Mr. Wickersham. To what extent are there banks there? 

Mr. Marsh. There is the information, better than I could give it 
to you. 

Mr. Wickersham. This is the information as to how many are 
caught. 

48684—10 7 



18 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Marsh. Do you mean how many cod there are left at the end 
of the season ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and how extensive the banks are. 

Mr. Browne. If you want the figures, they are right here in this 
report. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I can read the figures as well as anybody; 
but I want to know from Mr. Marsh whether the Bureau of Fisheries 
has any information about the banks which is not in the reports. 

Mr. Marsh. You are speaking about potential value? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Marsh. What would be left? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; or how many they would have if they 
could catch fairly up to the limit of annual production. 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; I see. You know you do not want to catch 
them all. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not. I am not a canner. 

Mr. Marsh. I think they know pretty well about the cod banks in 
western Alaska. You find them marked out on the map, and they 
cover a good many square miles, and there are a number of them, and 
they have the names on them, the Davidson bank, Slime bank, and 
so on, and if we should go up there and explore, we would probably 
find more ; but the fisherman himself is a pretty good man to do that. 

Mr. Wickersham. What other fisheries are there other than the 
cod? 

Mr. Marsh. The halibut. 

Mr. Wickersham. What is the extent of the halibut fishery ? 

Mr. Marsh. I do not think We know very much about the halibut in 
western Alaska. I think we ought to go up there and find out some- 
thing more about it. 

Mr. Wickersham. What other food fishes are there up there in 
western Alaska, besides the cod and halibut ? 

Mr. Marsh. There is none that approaches even the cod and 
halibut. 

Mr. Wickersham. The salmon fisheries, of course, are the most 
valuable ? 

Mr. Marsh. Infinitely. 

Mr. Wickersham. Infinitely the most valuable ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 

Doctor Evermann. Might I say a word at this juncture ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; I think so. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN, BUREAU OF 

FISHERIES. 

Doctor Evermann. I might say just a word about the cod banks 
and what the Bureau of Fisheries has done in the years past to deter- 
mine the location of cod banks and other possible cod fisheries. One 
of the first pieces of work that the fish commission steamer Albatross 
did after she went around the Horn in 1887, was to survey the waters 
on the hundred fathom curve and elsewhere in Alaska to determine 
what, if any, cod banks existed, or what banks of any other sort, and 
a great deal of time was spent in the years immediately following 1887 
ud to 1897, in various parts of Alaska. Pretty careful surveys were 
made all along in this region, and a number of halibut banks and of 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 19 

cod banks have been located and the Bureau determined suffi- 
ciently 

Mr. Humphreys. You say in this region ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, in the region lying south and southeast 
of the Alaskan Peninsula and the Aleutian Islands, and also into the 
region lying north and northwest from the Alaskan Peninsula and 
the Aleutian Islands extensive explorations were carried on, and a 
number of cod banks were discovered and surveyed and mapped, 
and the maps are in the reports of the bureau, and discussions as to 
the probable potential value of these banks are found in these reports. 
Off Kodiak Island there is Portlock Bank, and there are others here 
around the Shumagin Islands which are valuable. The apparent 
value of these banks so appealed to cod fishermen that there was a 
fishery established at the Shumagins, and it is still operated there, 
but the people are complaining that the supply of cod is growing 
less and less year after year, and they have asked the Bureau of 
Fisheries to establish a cod hatchery there; and the commissioner 
is on record favoring the establishment of a cod hatchery on the 
Shumagin Islands, or at some suitable place in Alaska. Now, there 
are good cod banks, apparently, north of the Alaskan Peninsula. 
I have gone all over this region several times, going back and forth 
in the steamer Albatross, and in Bering Sea, around the Seal Islands, 
and thence westward along the entire chain of islands, the Aleutian 
Islands to Attu, and then across to the Commander Island, and we 
made tests for cod in hundreds of places, and I think I could safely 
say that rarely did we fail to get cod whenever a line was put over. 
Now, as to how large a cod fishery can be developed anywhere on 
these banks is something for the commercial fishermen to work out. 

The Chairman. What is the method of taking cod? 

Doctor Evermann. It is ordinarily a hand-line fishery; a baited 
hook is put over. 

The Chairman. What is the depth, ordinarily, on the cod banks ? 

Doctor Evermann. I would not like to say, but anywhere from 20 
to 35 fathoms; sometimes deeper. 

Mr. Reynolds. What is the meaning of the term "banks?" 

Doctor Evermann. A bank is that portion of the sea bottom that 
would be an island if the sea were drained off down to a certain level, 
so as to leave this as an island; a shallow spot or area in the sea. 

Mr. Reynolds. It is an elevated area in the bottom of the sea ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. I call your attention to the profile map before 
you, and ask you if that fairly represents the sea bottom in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; it very likely represents it accurately. 
This would be the thousand-fathom curve around here [indicating 
on profile]. 

Now, as to the halibut banks, the method of making explorations 
for the purpose of developing halibut banks is different from that 
which would be employed in developing cod banks. The cod fishery 
is a line fishery. With the halibut, trawls must be put over, with a 
good many hooks to a line, and you may have to lie about in the 
neighborhood for a number of days. The bureau has located a num- 
ber of banks where halibut are found, but it proposes to put in all of 
this summer, I think, in southeastern Alaska and off Kodiak Island, 
in those investigations. 



20 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

The Chairman. Have you scientifically ascertained why. halibut 
should occupy one bank and cod another bank, or do they both occupy 
the same bank ? 

Doctor Evermann. The cod is practically everywhere, in moderate 
depths. The halibut will congregate in certain regions, and its abund- 
ance there will be determined by the abundance of particular things 
that it likes to eat. The halibut usually frequents somewhat greater 
depths than the cod. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is the halibut an easy fish to exterminate ? 

Doctor Evermann. Judging from the results of the halibut fishery 
on the Atlantic coast, I would say that it is not an easy fish to exter- 
minate; but it can be depleted. 

Mr. Wickersham. Much more readily than the salmon or the cod ? 

Doctor Evermann. Not nearly so readily as the salmon. 

Mr. Wickersham. The salmon is the most easily exterminated ? 

Doctor Evermann. Man can exterminate the salmon; but I doubt 
if he could exterminate the cod. 

The Chairman. The salmon are easily exterminated because of 
their well-known habit of coming in to spawn. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; they come in where you can round up 
the whole bunch, and absolutely destroy every individual; whereas 
the halibut and the cod are scattered over the bottom, particularly 
the cod. 

The Chairman. I wanted to refer to something that Mr. Marsh 
said. I had intended to ask him, but I may as well ask you. He 
stated, as I understood, that the advance of the school of salmon was 
anticipated by the boats that were sent out. I wanted to ask him if, 
after the run had set in, the fish had a well-known line of approach 
to the stream, so that fishermen could know that they would go by a 
certain point, for illustration; whether they invariably follow a cer- 
tain course, or whether each school picks a certain course; whether 
there is any such thing as a regular course of approach ? I have read 
that there is. 

Doctor Evermann. That is the belief of the fishermen, that they 
have certain routes of travel. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Doctor Evermann. And they try to intercept them, of course, on 
those routes. 

The Chairman. I have read that, and I wanted to know if it was 
true. 

Doctor Evermann. I am inclined to think that the fishermen 
think that that is a more definite fact or habit than is justified by 
the facts; but it is sufficiently definite to determine their methods of 
operation. 

The Chairman. Just at this moment I have in mind Rex Beach's 
story, The Silver Horde, in which an old fisherman relates that down 
at a certain point they are bound to come; that they did not do that 
at first, but when they did set in that way, they were sure of getting 
the fish. 

. Doctor Evermann. One point that was mentioned in the hearings 
T would like to say just a word regarding. Mr. Marsh called attention 
to the fact that of salmon that were marked by the Bureau of Fish- 
eries at Loring, some of those fish returned in two years, some in 
three years, some in four years, some in five years, and some even in 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 21 

six years. You asked the question why some returned earlier and 
some later. Now, I think it is the opinion of those who have studied 
the habits of salmon, that the matter of return to a fresh-water 
stream is determined largely by whether and when the individual 
salmon comes in contact with fresh water. There is a large school 
of salmon out in the salt water. That school has spread over a con- 
siderable area. Some individuals on the edge of that school, one 
edge or the other, will feel the influence of a large influx of fresh water 
from this fresh-water stream. That stimulates them, it seems, to a 
more rapid development of their reproductive organs and causes 
them to seek fresh water. Some individuals of the school are on the 
outskirts, too remote, and are not affected by the fresh water so soon, 
and they will return late. Perhaps they might escape for an entire 
year. 

The Chairman. Then it is the touch of the fresh water? 

Doctor Evermann. The touch of the fresh water is a stimulus to 
which they respond. • 

The Chairman. That starts them going? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; as every act of every living being in the 
world is in response to a stimulus. 

The Chairman. That is the spring for the Alaskan salmon, then ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; it seems to be the stimulus that makes 
them come to the fresh water. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, is that a theory, or is there any evidence 
upon which to base it ? 

Doctor Evermann. It is a theory. It is not demonstrated, but it 
is a very plausible theory, and I am sure it is the theory that is held 
by every ichthyologist. 

Mr. Wickersham. But it is a theory ? 

Doctor Evermann. Oh, yes; of course. 

Mr. Wickersham. How did you mark those salmon which were 
marked by the Bureau of Fisheries ? 

Doctor Evermann. Those Mr. Chamberlain marked were marked 
by cutting off certain fins. 

Mr. Wickersham. The ventral fins ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; the ventral fins. The salmon has two sets 
of paired fins. The pectoral fins correspond to our arms, and the 
ventral fins correspond to our legs. The ventral fins are situated up 
here near the middle of the abdomen, and by cutting those it was 
found that they did not regenerate. 

Mr. Wickersham. I notice from your report of output that the 
salmon is increasing. I want to ask you this, if the output of canned 
salmon is not shown to be increasing from the fact that the canneries 
are using up the principal ? In other words, they are extending their 
operations into new streams and taking new fish all the time, and 
they are not increasing the catch from the old streams, but they are 
taking more fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. That is in part true. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is it not wholly true? 

Doctor Evermann. Xo; I would not say wholly. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is there any stream which you can bring to 
mind now where, after years of fishing, there are more fish than when 
they started, or where there is an equal number of fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. The Sacramento River. 



22 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not talking about the Sacramento River 
now. They do not can salmon there. 

Doctor Evermann. They find a better market for the fresh sal- 
mon. They would can them if it was not for that. They catch 
them, which amounts to the same thing. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am talking about a different salmon entirely, 
the Alaska salmon. 

Doctor Evermann. As I said the other day, where you have a 
dozen or more relatively small streams close together, it is difficult to 
follow out any line of investigation there as certainly and satisfac- 
torily as you can if you have one of those streams so removed from 
all the others that you can feel sure that the fish of that stream do not 
mix with the fish of any other stream. Now, you have practically 
that condition in the Sacramento River, and we know what the result 
is there. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is it not true in Alaska — and let us stay in 
Alaska in this inquiry 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is it not true in Alaska that all those streams 
that are being fished are being greatly depleted ? 

Doctor Evermann. The catch of salmon at Karluk is the most 
striking example, I think, that any person taking either view of the 
question might present. Mr. Marsh compiled the other day a table 
showing the number of red salmon which have been utilized by the 
canners of Karluk for the last several years. I forget in what year 
you began, Mr. Marsh. 

Mr. Marsh. It went back to 1889 or 1890. 

Doctor Evermann. The table shows the number of salmon utilized 
by the various canning companies doing business at Karluk. There 
has been a considerable fluctuation. The catch has varied from 
2,600,000 individual fish down to 700,000 or 800,000 individual fish. 
The catch in 1906 was over 2,600,000. The catch in 1899 was about 
900,000, which was very much lower than in any year immediately 
preceding, or than in any year immediately following; but it was not 
greatly larger than that of last year, which was a little over 700,000 ; 
and the catch of 1906, only four years ago, was one of the largest in 
the history of the operations at Karluk. Now, a catch of only 
700,000 last year does look somewhat alarming when viewed in 
connection with the catch of 1906, only three years before, you see. 

The Chairman. How do you account for that very large catch in 
1906 as compared with the small catch of the years immediately pre- 
ceding ? 

Doctor Evermann. It is difficult to account for it wholly, but here 
are some of the things that must be considered. In the earlier years 
the canners did not separate the red salmon from the other salmon; 
it was so many salmon. Second, in the earlier years they did not 
segregate the salmon which were caught off the mouth of Karluk 
stream from the salmon that were caught in other near-by streams. 
In the catch of 1909, that 700,000 salmon is the catch of Karluk 
stream alone. Now, if we would add .to that the catch from other 
near-by streams, it would increase, of course, by so much, the catch. 
I have not the figures. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether the catch of 1906 was of 
the Karluk stream alone ? 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 23 

Doctor Evermann. The catch of 1906 was like that of the years 
immediately preceding, and the year or two immediately following, 
for Karluk and the other near-by streams. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, Doctor, I am going to say to this commit- 
tee that the streams in Alaska where fishing is carried on year after 
year are all being depleted. Would that be a correct statement ? 

Doctor Evermann. If you compared only one year with some 
oth^r one year, that statement would seem to be justified. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I am talking now about the fair statement 
of conditions in those streams. 

Doctor Evermann. I would put it for the year. I' would say that 
with the present output of the salmon hatcheries, and with the present 
and anticipated activities of the canneries, we can safely predict that 
the supply of salmon in southeastern Alaska will go on diminishing; 
that it has already diminished some, and that it will continue to 
diminish . 

The Chairman. How aboj.it western Alaska? 

Doctor Evermann. I would say that that would be the same any- 
where in Alaska eventually. 

The Chairman. But you did not mention it in your statement. 

Doctor Evermann. He asked the question differently; but we 
can make the same reply to all of Alaska. 

The Chairman. Now, in a general way, what immediate steps 
should be taken — and I am aware that perhaps I am asking a question 
involving a good deal — what immediate steps should be taken to 
prevent the reduction of the salmon and to restore, so far as possible, 
or to keep up so far as possible, the productivity of these fisheries ? 

Doctor Evermann. The key to the whole situation, as I view it, 
is in the artificial propagation of salmon. It is just as much the key 
to the situation there as artificial propagation of hogs and chickens is 
in the production of pork and of chickens. 

The Chairman. That is, you would recommend the establishment 
of more government hatcheries, the private hatcheries continuing for 
the present; but you think that eventually the Government should 
have charge of the whole hatchery business ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir; I imagine that in the end that is the 
condition that ought to be brought about. 

Mr. Reynolds. Is it possible to maintain the present conditions, 
in view of the existing amount that is caught from year to year ? 

Doctor Evermann. I should say that the continuance of the pres- 
ent conditions will gradually reduce the supply of salmon, because 
the salmon canners are fishing assiduously, and they are catching all 
that they can. 

Mr. Wickersham. And they are building new canneries. 

Doctor Evermann. They are building new ones and abandoning 
some old ones. The number in the country is not increasing mate- 
rially. 

The Chairman. You think, then, that by the process of hatching 
it is possible to supply the salmon to meet this increasing canning 
business ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have not a bit of doubt about it. I think 
it is just as possible to meet the demand for fish by artificial propaga- 
tion as it is to meet the demand for wheat and corn and every other 



24 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

natural product with the artificial propagation and culture of those 
things. 

The Chairman. Has your experience in Alaska warranted it ? 

- Doctor Evermann. Absolutely warranted it. It is not the experi- 
ence in the Sacramento River alone, but the shad and the striped 
bass were not in those waters, and they are there now; and take the 
Yellowstone Park, where there were no fish in the streams above the 
falls until introduced by the Bureau of Fisheries, and now they are 
so abundant that the park authorities have withdrawn practically all 
restrictions. 

The CHAiRMiSN. And let them be caught with hook and line ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

The Chairman. And they catch them in the lakes ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 
< , Mr. Wickersham. Now, is it not just as essential for the Govern- 
ment through your bureau to take charge of the fisheries of Alaska, 
if they want them preserved, as it is to care for the fish in the Yellow- 
stone Park and in other places % In other words, is not government 
supervision absolutely necessary at this time in Alaska ? 

Doctor Evermann. I think it is desirable, but I can not see that 
if any 

The Chairman. Suppose it was withdrawn; what would become 
of the fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. If the Government had, say, ten hatcheries in 
Alaska or five hatcheries in Alaska, and private parties were willing 
to maintain one or two or three more hatcheries, I can not see that 
that would be detrimental at all. That would supplement the 
work which the Government is doing. But that is a matter for 
adjustment in the future. I would not bar anybody from maintain- 
ing, a private hatchery if he wanted to do so. In fact, I would encour- 
age him to do so, just as I would encourage every farmer and every 
man in the country to raise something on the land which he controls. 

Mr. Wickersham. But do you not think they ought to be com- 
pelled to do it, and for the same reason that the farmer is compelled 
to sow his own wheat % 

Doctor Evermann. That they should be compelled to maintain 
hatcheries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Doctor Evermann. That was the old law or regulation; but it was 
impossible to obey that law. 

Mr. Marsh. At the ratio given. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I know that was unreasonable. 

Doctor Evermann. It was impossible to obey it, because there 
are some salmon fisheries on streams where it is physically impossible 
to maintain a hatchery. 

- Mr. Wickersham. If they will not put the seed back, they ought 
to contribute something to enable the Government to maintain these 
hatcheries and put the salmon back. 

Doctor Evermann. I should say that the method of raising a 
revenue for Alaska is not a question that the Bureau of Fisheries 
ought to settle. That ought to be determined some other way. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Bureau of Fisheries has at least got to take 
charge of the hatcheries in Alaska in order to have it well done. 
* Doctor Evermann. Yes. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 25 

Mr. Wickersham. Is not that correct ? 

Doctor Evermann. I think so, to have it well done. 

The Chairman. You think that the rebate system should con- 
tinue, even though more government hatcheries should be installed ? 

Doctor Evermann. I see no objection to that at all, because if 
there is anything in artificial propagation, and some private individual 
is willing to propagate a considerable number of salmon, then he is 
doing at his expense just what the Government is doing at govern- 
ment expense, and the result is the same. Now, the same arrange- 
ment is maintained in some other places. 

The Chairman. But you would make it perfectly clear that arti- 
ficial propagation is necessary to maintain the fisheries ? 
. Doctor Evermann. Yes. I would want to emphasize that above 
all things. 

Mr. Wickersham. But you do not know of but 24 fish that have 
ever been returned from artificial propagation, do you \ 

Doctor Evermann. Well 

Mr. Wickersham. Now" can you testify that you do know of 
more than 24 fish that have ever been returned from artificial prop- 
agation ? 

The Chairman. Do you not think that the Sacramento River is a 
pretty good illustration ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The Sacramento River is not in Alaska, and I 
will submit that to the committee. 

Doctor Evermann. The length of time that those connected with 
the hatcheries have the fish before them before they set them free is 
not sufficient to enable them to get that close personal acquaintance 
with the individuals which would make it possible for them to recog- 
nize them on their return. I sometimes forget my friends that I have 
not seen for four years, and I would hardly be expected to recognize 
those individual salmon that have been away for four years when they 
return. 

Mr. Good. But you can hardly say that those canneries which 
maintain these hatcheries and receive large rebates are maintaining 
them at their own expense, can you ? 

Doctor Evermann. In* part only. When the rebate is given they 
are maintained only in part at their expense, of course. 

Mr. Good. Do you mean by that to say that it costs them more to 
maintain these hatcheries than the rebate amounts to \ 

Doctor Evermann. I would not undertake to say what it costs the 
canneries to maintain the hatcheries. I know what it costs us, and 
I can form some idea. 

Mr. Browne. For your information, I might say that when my 
time comes I will show you that it costs us more than it costs the 
Government. We have spent a half million dollars in maintaining 
hatcheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then why do you not let us turn all this 
business to the Government. 

Mr. Browne. I will put my information before you and give you 
my opinion when my turn comes. 

Mr. Good. What have you to say as to the depositing near fish 
traps or pound nets of this offal that Mr. Marsh spoke about, and to 
what extent do you think that has interfered with the propagation in 
these fisheries ? 



26 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Doctor Evermann. I could not say that that has interfered with 
the propagation of salmon at all. It is a pollution of the waters, 
of course, but just what the results of such pollutions are, I do not 
know. 

The Chairman. Is there not a natural pollution of the waters by 
reason of the natural death of the salmon after spawning? 

Doctor Evermann. Naturally so. 

The Chairman. Would not that natural pollution be as great, 
even, as the pollution from the depositing of offal and waste ? 

Doctor Evermann. One would think that it would be very great, 
and it is great; but it is not so great as I had supposed it would be. 
I had been led to believe that you could go along a salmon stream 
and the stench would be unbearable ; but I have gone along salmon- 
spawning streams in Washington and Idaho and Oregon, and I have 
been there at the close of the spawning season when the fish were 
dying, and until they were all dead, and there were spots here and 
there where the odor was disagreeable, and next to unbearable; but 
there were other places where it was not as much as you would 
expect. The fish do not all die on the same day; they scatter through 
the season. In the mountains of Idaho I saw them dying as late 
as September, when their spawning season was in late July. Along the 
salmon-spawning streams there will be all sorts of predatory animals 
that will utilize these dead salmon to some extent. Moreover, 
the water is cold, and the fish do not decay and swell up and become 
noxious at once, but a salmon can lie in a cold Alaskan stream for a 
long time and not become that disgusting object that it would in a 
warm stream elsewhere. 

Mr. McKinney. Now, supposing that the Government does estab- 
lish some additional hatcheries, and private parties also establish 
several more than they now have, will that have any real effect on the 
present condition there, unless there is something done toward put- 
ting a limitation of some sort, or a restriction, on the activity of the 
fishermen ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; it will have a good effect, whether any 
additional restrictions on fishing are imposed or not. 

Mr. McKinney. What I mean is, suppose you have done some: 
thing to increase the number of salmon? 

Doctor Evermann. Y§s. 

Mr. McKinney. Would not that all be taken up ; would there not 
be increased activity on the part of the fishermen ? There is no 
limit to the market for salmon. Would they not go on and just 
absorb that much more and put you practically in the same position 
that you are in now ? 

Doctor Evermann. There is one restriction, and it should be an 
additional restriction, wherever a hatchery is established, and that 
is this: Fishing in the vicinity of any hatchery should be restricted 
to that extent which would permit the hatchery to get all the fish 
that it needed for propagating purposes, and that number will be 
determined by the capacity of the hatchery, of course. Take the 
hatchery at Yes Bay, with a capacity of 100,000,000 eggs. Fishing 
is there restricted. The Secretary has authority to and does restrict 
the fishing in Yes Bay and vicinity to that extent to which the 
superintendent of the hatchery thinks is sufficient to enable him to 
get all of the salmon that he can utilize. I see no reason why the 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 27 

time can not come when you can depend absolutely and wholly upon 
artificial propagation to produce the salmon that you need, just as 
you could, I think, with the whitefish in the Great Lakes. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that with the proper laws and proper 
regulations as to fishing season and fishing methods and the taking 
of spawn it would be possible to save all of the spawn of all of the 
whitefish that are caught in Lake Huron and Lake Erie by sending 
spawn takers out on the 'fishing tugs to take the eggs from the fish 
caught in the spawning season, fertilize those eggs, and put them in 
the hatcheries and hatch them, and allow none of the fish to spawn 
naturally. It would not be necessary, because if there is anything in 
artificial propagation at all it is better to get the eggs of all of the 
fish than of a part of the fish; is it not ? If it is an advantage to get 
the eggs of a thousand whitefish and propagate them artificially, 
because you believe more of them will hatch and more of them will 
grow to maturity by such a process, then it is better to get all the 
eggs of the 10,000 or the 100,000 fish. So that the salvation of the 
whitefish fisheries on the Great Lakes lies, I think, in that direction, 
to save the eggs of every whitefish that is caught and hatch them 
artificially, and then there would be no necessity for any restrictions 
on whitefish fishing, or pike-perch fishing, or lake-trout fishing in the 
spawning season on the Great Lakes, and the only time that I could 
see when it would be necessary to have any restrictions would be just 
preceding the spawning season, when there should be a close season 
until their eggs are ripe, so that you can take them. 

Mr. Wickersham. But suppose they catch so many fish one year 
that you can not take enough eggs ? 

Doctor Evermann. It does not make any difference if you should 
catch every adult fish, if you should take every egg of every adult 
fish and save it. 

Mr. McKinney. You do not have the legislation now to enable, vou 
to do that? 

Doctor Evermann. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinney. And do you have sufficient legislation to enable 
you to operate that way in Alaska with the salmon ? 

Doctor Evermann. No, sir; we need more legislation. 

Mr. McKinney. So that you need additional legislation? 

Doctor Evermann. We need additional authority for establishing 
additional hatcheries. 

The Chairman. I understood your statement the other day to be 
that on the whole the Secretary of Commerce and Labor has the 
power to regulate fisheries in Alaska and to control the methods of 
fishing. Does that state it fully ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; that is correct; but he can regulate only 
within certain limits, and as both Mr. Marsh and I stated, we believe 
that he should have more authority. 

Mr. Wickersham. What authority do you want him to have ? We 
have been trying to get that. 

The Chairman. Doctor Evermann stated that he would give us 
some suggestions along that line. 

Doctor Evermann. The chairman requested suggestions along that 
line, and I may say that we are working along that line and hope to 
submit to you soon suggestions regarding the various sections of the 
present Alaska salmon law which should be amended. 



28 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you taken up the law section by section ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes; we have taken it up section by section. 

Mr. Wickersham. To cover each character of fish ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And when that is done we can have that printed 
as a part of the hearing? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And will you suggest anything new that you 
think ought to go in ? 

Doctor Evermann. Any additional sections ? 

The Chairman. What you think ought to be done, if anything, in 
regard to the fisheries. 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Doctor Evermann and Mr. Marsh, I take it that 
you have practically covered the ground except as to the suggestions 
in relation to the law. 

Doctor Evermann. So far as we know we have. 

The Chairman. Very well; we are very much obliged to you gen- 
tlemen for the information you have given us. 

(At 12 o'clock m. the committee adjourned.) 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS 



RELATING TO 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS 
IN ALASKA 



STATEMENT OF 

HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM 

DELEGATE FROM ALASKA 



MAY 5, 1910 



Sixty-First Congress, Second Sessiqn 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



Committee on the Territories, 

Thursday, May 5, 1910. 
The committee was called to order at 10.45 a. m., Hon. Edward L 
Hamilton (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, DELEGATE FROM 
ALASKA, AND DR. B. W. EVERMANN AND MR. MILLARD C. 
MARSH, OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. I suppose you desire to be heard this morning, 
Judge Wickersham ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I anticipated that Captain Whorf would be a 
witness, and had made preparations, after asking him to be here; but 
he has concluded that he will not testify. So that I want to present 
some matters that have come to me in respect to the fisheries bill, and 
then I will submit the matter to the committee. 

I want to say to the committee that I am in favor of conservation. 
Conservation at this time seems to have occupied the attention not 
only of all of our political parties, but of the people of the United 
States, and we have, I think, unanimously come to the conclusion that 
under proper limitations conservation is a very good thing. I do not 
know of anything in Alaska, Mr. Chairman, that conservation is fitted 
to serve quite so well as the fisheries. That is one of the great natural 
resources of the Territory which needs care and attention. It needs 
protection. It needs the fostering care of the Government. It needs 
the attention of the Bureau of Fisheries. It needs that the Bureau of 
Fisheries shall be given greater latitude in its management. It needs 
all that conservation means. 

The Chairman. Just how far are you going to extend your indorse- 
ment of conservation ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am going to be brief upon that point, because 
I anticipate that members of this committee know something about 
that as well as I do. But I want to call the attention of the com- 
mittee to that view of the matter, so if you are in favor of conserva- 
tion, here is your chance. 

Mr. Lloyd. We are all in favor of that. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then, let us do something in the way of legis- 
lating for the fisheries in Alaska. 

Now, I want to read another editorial from the Seattle Post Intel- 
ligencer of date April 28, 1910. Referring to the Ketchikan grand 
jury report, which I read a few days ago, the editorial says [reads]: 

WANT THEIR FISH PROTECTED. 

The grand jury, which has been in session at Ketchikan, Alaska, in its final report, 
earnestly recommended legislation by Congress to prevent the wasteful destruction of 
food fish in the waters of Alaska. The grand jury pointed out that great quantities of 



4 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

herring were being destroyed for no other purpose save to secure oil and fertilizer from 
them. The herring are not only a valuable food fish in themselves, but they are the 
principal food for many varieties of salmon, for the cod, and halibut, and for other of 
the larger food fish. The continual destruction of herring must necessarily limit the 
supply of other food fish and destroy in time the greatest fishing grounds in the world . 

The absence of any legislation for the protection of the food fish of Alaska is due to 
the present condition of affairs, the entire absence of any local legislative body and the 
necessary reliance upon Congress to make all of the laws, of every kind and character, 
for the Territory. Alaska is a remote and isolated region to the average Member of 
Congress, who is not interested in the slightest degree about anything in connection 
with the Territory. To require Congress to attend to all the details of parochial 
legislation for Alaska is as absurd in practical operation as it would be for the same body 
to take over the making of the city ordinances for Seattle; and, in operation, the 
duty is handled with about the same amount of intelligence in the one case as it would 
be in the other. 

Still, if Congress can be persuaded to protect the food fish of Alaska by some intel- 
ligent legislation, which would not put a stop to the fishing industry altogether, it 
would be a good thing for the whole country. The emphasis should be put upon the 
"intelligent" side of the legislation. The short and simple maxim of the so-called 
conservationist, in dealing with any such question as this, is to forbid the taking or 
use of any natural resource for any purpose. The remedy would be worse than the 
disease. 

I call that to the committee's attention to show that on the Pacific 
coast there is a general demand for some amendment of these laws, 
and for some conservation of the fish in Alaska ; and that demand does 
not come from the Delegate from Alaska altogether; it comes from 
all of the leading Republican and Democratic newspapers on the 
Pacific coast, from the grand juries in every one of the divisions of 
Alaska, from all the business interests throughout that country. It 
is a demand that ought to have some consideration, and I hope this 
committee will give it that consideration which it deserves before we 
close with this matter. 

Mr. Wickersham: Do you know, Mr. Browne, the amount per 
share of capital stock of the company ? 

Mr. Browne. One hundred dollars. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have here a copy of the Pacific Fisherman 
containing the annual report of the Alaska Packers' Association, and 
I desire to call that to the attention of the committee. This is evi- 
dently an official report published by them for the purpose of giving 
information to the world, and I suppose it is correct. I desire to ask 
to have it included in my statement. It is not long — less than one 
page — it is a very full and complete statement, and I want to call the 
attention of the committee to some of its features. It is dated Jan- 
uary 18, 1910. I want to call attention first to the fact that it shows 
that the Alaska Packers' Association has 14 canneries in Alaska, and 
it gives the names and the location of the canneries. And then it 
gives the total output of this particular association, and it gives their 
profits for the year 1909 as follows: The profits for 1909 were 
$779,728.69. 

The Chairman. This is what is known as the Alaska Canneries 
Association, is it? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, the Alaska Packers' Association. 

The Chairman. And they had 14 canneries in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. Fourteen canneries, yes. 

The Chairman. How many corporations composed the association ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It is one company. 

Mr. Browne. They have canneries on Puget Sound. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 5 

Mr. Wickersham. That is included here. They have three can- 
neries on Puget Sound, 17 in all. 

Now, I want to call attention to the fact that while their profits for 
1909 were $779,728.69, the report shows the expenditure of a large 
sum for improvements and additional plant which is not included as 
profit. It also shows that they purchased two new steel barks 
for $122,500, and built certain launches and so forth at a cost of 
$25,042.86. And I want to call attention to this fact, that I sub- 
mitted this statement to a bookkeeper, and he tells me that he judges 
from the figures presented that all those things are extracted from 
the total amount before profits are declared. In other words, that 
the profit should be enlarged by the total amount put into those 
ships. Now I can not show that otherwise than as it appears upon 
the face of the report, but anyway the profits amount to the sum that 
I have called attention to. 

Mr. McKinney. That is, that they are in addition to the better- 
ments ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; - * in addition to the vessels, and so forth, 
that they have purchased. And then a dividend has been declared 
of $1.50 per share on the capital stock of the corporation, payable on 
February 10, 1910. 

Mr. Lloyd. If those vessels had been purchased for supplying the 
places of vessels worn out, then it would be a betterment charge. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is not the situation so far as it appears 
here. 

The Chairman. What dividend do you say they declared? 

Mr. Wickersham. $1.50 per share on the capital stock of the 
corporation. 

The Chairman. What is the par value ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Browne has stated $100. 

Mr. Lloyd. That would be 1^ per cent. 

Mr. Langham. If that dividend is declared every month 

Mr. Browne. Will you allow me to interrupt for a moment, Judge ? 
The Alaska Packers' Association, like every other fishing corporation, 
has had very lean years, and has good years and medium years. I 
have been the representative here for a long time, not in connection 
with this, and not upon an annual retainer, and I know that the 
time has been when the stock was away down, when they paid no 
dividends, as I was advised, and when the capital had to be increased. 
There have been other times when they declared dividends — but 
all of that I will cover when I make my statement before the 
committee. 

Mr. McKinney. You say that the par value is $100 ? 

Mr. Browne. Yes. 

Mr. McKinney. What is the market value ? 

Mr. Browne. The market value has been away below par. The 
market value sometimes has been above par; but I will get all of 
that information and have it for the committee when I come to make 
my statement. 

Mr. McKinney. Is it around par now ? 

Mr. Browne. I think so. I am only the local attorney here, called 
upon occasionally to do work for them, and the quotations are made 
in California and not here. But I will get them and advise you. 

48684—10 8 



6 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. I wish to say that there is no pessimism in this 
report, nothing; but optimism. I want to call attention to the fact 
that the report shows that the total issue of shares of the company 
is 57,508. That is the number of shares now outstanding. 

Mr. Lloyd. That would be $5,700,000. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. As I say, the total number of shares is 
57,508, and the total profit for 1909 was $779,728.69. That is more 
than $1.50 per share, because $1.50 per share on 57,508 shares would 
foe less than $100,000. They have more than seven times that much 
profit, so that they could, if they desired, have made a dividend of 
seven times $1.50 upon all of those shares upon the profits which 
they themselves declared. 

Now, I wish to call your attention to the following from their 
ireport [reads] : 

The steel barks Star of Holland and Star of Greenland have been purchased for 
1122,500. The launches Hawk, Plover, and the fire boat Phoenix were built at a cost of 
$25,042.86. There has been expended for improvements and repairs to the fleet the 
amount of $176,921.82. There has been written off from fleet values for deprecia- 
tion the sum of $104,970.26, leaving the present appraised value of the fleet $1,281,700. 
The association now owns 9 ships, 9 barks, 1 barkentine, 2 schooners, and 59 steamers 
and launches, a total of 80 vessels. 

Now, if they paid for all of the boats they have been buying and that 
is all added to the profit, you will see what the profits of this one con- 
cern were for the year 1910. 

Mr. Good. Have you their annual statements for a couple of years 
back? 

Mr. Browne. I have the annual statements, and I will submit them 
to the committee with great pleasure. 

Annual Report of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

San Francisco, January 18, 1910. 
To the Stockholders of the Alaska Packers' Association: 

On behalf of the board of directors of this corporation, I submit the following report 
of the business of the association for the year 1909 : 

CAPITALIZATION. 

The capitalization of the company remained the same, viz: $7,500,000 authorized 
capital, divided into 75,000 shares of the par value of $100 each. The present issue is 
57,508 shares, leaving 17,492 shares in the treasury of the company. 

AUDITING. 

In accordance with the usual custom, all of the books, accounts, and vouchers of 
the association were examined, checked, and audited by the auditor, Mr. W. W. 
Armstrong, who has reported as follows: 

"San Francisco, January 8, 1910. 
""To the President and Board of Directors 

of the Alaska Packers' Association. 
"Gentlemen: Since my last annual report, my duties as general auditor of the asso- 
ciation have been as follows: 

"1. Counting the cash on hand daily, verifying cashbook balance. 
"2. Checking daily financial statement. 

"3. Checking vouchers for all cash disbursed during the year. 
""4. Checking bank accounts monthly. 



FISHERIES. AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 7 

"5. Auditing cashier's and voucher clerk's bills for all purchases and payments, 
being a check upon cashier, purchasing and shipping departments for goods ordered, 
delivered, priced, calculated, and approved. 

"6. Checking postings of controlling and subsidiary ledgers, with their auxiliary 
books, journals, and cashbook. 

"7. Checking salmon invoices with salmon journal". 

"8. Checking final reports of salmon discharged from vessels, disposing of entire 
cargoes. ' 

"9. Checking warehouse receipts and deliveries. 

"10. Recording all stock transferred during the year, as per stock-transfer journal 
and ledger. 

"Status at the closing of the books January 8, 1910: 

Shares. 

Outstanding of old issue 130 

New issue of May 1, 1905 57, 378 

Total issue 57, 508 

"All of the foregoing work I have the honor to report as being correct. 
"Respectfully, 

"W. W. Armstrong, Auditor." 

The accounts have also been audited by Price, Waterhouse & Co., chartered account- 
ants, and their certificate is attached . 

INSURANCE ACCOUNTS. 

The association carries its own insurance on buildings, wharves, machinery, equip- 
ments, furniture, and on product in the course of manufacture and finished in its 
own plants; also on all floating property and on cargoes of box shooks, lumber, and 
coal. All up and down cargoes are insured at full values, and salmon and merchan- 
dise stored in warehouses in San Francisco at about one-half their values. 

INSURANCE FUNDS. 

At the close of 1908, the fund showed a credit of $347,441.04 and earned $237,835.34 
for 1909. 

The amounts charged for losses and expenses aggregate $26,787.60. 

The insurance fund now amounts to $558,488.78; of this, $556,688.45 is invested in 
bonds. 

PACK. 

The association's pack of salmon for the season was about 27 per cent of the entire 
coast pack, as follows: 

Sockeye cases . . 159, 949 

Red do.... 857,232 

King do.... 25,797 

Coho do.... 16,860 

Rink do.... 264,759 

Chums do. . . . 13, 657 

Total do 1, 338, 254 

Salt salmon barrels. . 6, 537 

An increase of 177,777 cases and a decrease of 2,798 barrels over the pack of 1908. 

MARKETS. 

During the early part of 1909 the salmon markets were rather quiet. Since August 
the demand has been brisk in all countries except South America. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN" ALASKA. 



The following canneries were operated: 

Alaska: 

Nushagak 2 

Kvichak 2 

Naknek 2 

Egegak , 1 

Chignik 1 

Alitak 1 

Karluk 2 

Cook Inlet 1 

Fort Wrangell 1 

Loring 1 

14 

Puget Sound: 

Semiahmoo 1 

Point Roberts 1 

Anacortes 1 

■ ■ 3 

Total 17 

Current repairs and replacements amounting to $168,738.08 have been charged to 
operating cost. New improvements and additions to plants have been made at a cost 
of $123,490.55. There has been written off from plants on account of depreciation 
$142,906.82, making the present appraised value of plants $4,257,486.42, or $27,397.37 
less than last year, 

FLEET. 

The steel barks Star of Holland and Star of Greenland have been purchased for 
$122,500. 

The launches Hawk, Plover, and the fire boat Phoenix were built at a cost 
of $25,042.86. 

There has been expended for improvements and repairs to the fleet the amount of 
$176,921.82. There has been written off from fleet values for depreciation the sum of 
$104,970.26, leaving the present appraised value of the fleet $1,281,700. 

The association now owns 9 ships, 9 barks, 1 barkentine, 2 schooners, and 59 steamers 
and launches, a total of 80 vessels. 

MEDICAL STATIONS. 

The association maintains 6 medical stations in Alaska. All employees and all 
natives are given free medical treatment and medicines. 

EXPENDITURES IN ALASKA. 

The policy of the association to assist in the development of Alaska has been con- 
tinued, and expenditures exceeding $250,000 for the year were made in the Territory. 

SALMON HATCHERIES. 

The two salmon hatcheries of the association have continued operations. During 
1909, from the 40,320,000 red-salmon eggs taken in 1908 at the Karluk salmon hatchery, 
36,075,000 fry were liberated and 45,228,000 red-salmon eggs were taken. From the 
24,465,000 red-salmon eggs taken at the Fortmann salmon hatchery in 1908, 22,785,000 
fry were liberated and 53,340,000 red-salmon eggs were taken in 1909. 

In Alaska the Government continued operating large salmon hatcheries on McDonald 
Lake and at Litnik, Afognak Island. 

PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PLANTS AND FLEET. 

The canneries, hatcheries, shipyard, and fleet of the association have all been kept 
in a very high-class condition, and more than fully equipped to meet all demands on 
them. Each cannery has machine and general repair shops; every cannery district 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 9 

is provided with ship ways to haul out vessels; large stocks of material, reserve 
machinery, and other equipments are kept on hand to provide for all probable 
contingencies. 

The shipyard at Alameda is equipped with a general wood-working plant, machine 
shop, and other appliances sufficient to make all but the larger improvements and 
repairs to vessels and to build and repair all cannery machinery. 

BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. 

During the year 1909, $287, '000 of the bonds of the association were redeemed and 
canceled, reducing the bonded indebtedness to $1,322,000. 

PROFITS FOR THE YEAR. 

The insurance fund has increased $211,047.74. 
The profits for 1909 were $779,728.69. 

DIVIDENDS. 

A dividend of $1.50 per share on the capital stock of the corporation has been 
declared, payable February 10j 1910. 
For the board of directors: 

Henry F. Fortmann, President. 

The following directors and officers were elected for the year 1910: 
Directors. — Henry F. Fortmann, Isaac Liebes, W. B. Bradford, D. Drysdale, Francis 
Cutting, Win. L. Gerstle, Louis Sloss, Henry E. Bothin, George L. Payne, John Daniel, 
William Timson. 

Officers. — Henry F. Fortmann, president; Louis Sloss, vice-president; William Tim- 
son, vice-president; Isaac Liebes, treasurer; A. K. Tichenor, secretary; G. E. Geary, 
cashier. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, in this same Pacific Fisherman is a photo- 
graph of the government hatchery at Yes Bay, Alaska. It seems to 
be quite a pretentious building, but I am informed — and Doctor 
Evermann and Mr. Browne are both here — that the ordinary run of 
these salmon hatcheries is of very cheap construction. 

Mr. Browne. I don't know. 

Mr. Wickersham. Doctor Evermann, do you know? 

Doctor Evermann. The buildings are cheaply constructed; I don't 
mean the government hatcheries, but the private hatcheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. What about the private hatcheries ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have not seen the government hatchery at 
Yes Bay. I have seen the hatchery at Loring, and it is well con- 
structed, more expensively constructed than most of our hatcheries 
that I have seen. But I have not seen the Yes Bay hatchery. What 
do you know about the other hatcheries, Mr. Marsh ? 

Mr. Marsh. I have seen the Fortmann hatchery. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you seen the other hatcheries? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; the one at Hetta. 

Mr. Wickersham. Take the Hetta hatchery, what kind of build- 
ings have they ? 

Mr. Marsh. Of rather cheap construction. 

Mr. Wickersham. What about the Fortmann hatchery ? 

Mr. Marsh. It is about the same. They do not pay a great deal 
of attention to the buildings, and they look rather rough. 

Mr. Wickersham. Very low buildings ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And there is no machinery involved? 

Mr. Marsh. No. 



10 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Just a shell of a building, with water running 
in at one end and out at the other, with some troughs placed for hold- 
ing fish, and a few sieves and trays. That is about all there is to a 
hatchery, is it not? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes; they pay special attention to building the walls 
in order to keep out the wind, so that the hatchery will be warm 
enough. 

The Chairman. What is the material used, stone or wood ? 

Mr. Marsh. It is wood. 

The Chairman. Pine? 

Mr. Marsh. I think not. I think they use the local timber, spruce 
and cedar. 

The Chairman. Is it sided like a barn or house ? 

Mr. Marsh. More like a barn, with a thickness of something like 
tarred paper between to make it tight. 

The Chairman. Two thicknesses, sealed up on the outside, with 
tarred paper between ? 

Mr. Marsh. That is it. 

The Chairman. Is it one story ? 

Mr. Marsh. Well, there is a sort of a loft. 
. The Chairman. How do they get the correct temperature in the 
hatchery ? What is the heating system ? 

Mr. Marsh. A big wood stove. 

The Chairman. One big stove ? 

• Mr. Marsh. I think they have two, but I don't remember. The 
stove is built for the purpose to hold a large quantity of wood, and 
keeps the temperature so that it will not freeze; so that it will be 
comfortable, because the winters are very cold. 

Mr. Wickersham. What I want to call the attention of the com- 
mittee to is that these hatcheries are great big barn-like structures, 
with water running in at one end and running out at the other, and 
containing a big stove to keep them warm. That is all there is to it. 
It is a big henhouse. There is no value to it, and there is no expense 
to maintain it. When do they begin, Mr. Marsh, to take the eggs? 

Mr. Marsh. In the fall; as early as August in some places, and 
even as late as December in some places. 

Mr. Wickersham. And when are the fry turned loose ? 

Mr. Marsh. In the spring; early in the spring. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many months are the men at work there? 

Mr. Marsh. All of that time; from the time they take the eggs 
until the ivy goes out. 

Mr. Wickersham. Six or seven months ? 

Mr. Marsh. It must be longer than that. 

Mr. Wickersham. Eight months ? How many men are employed ? 

• Mr. Marsh. That I can not tell you definitely. 
Mr. Wickersham. Well, two ? 

Mr. Marsh. Two or three men at the hatchery, I should think, 
would do the work in the winter time. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many men, at the most, are employed at 
any one hatchery ? 

Mr. Marsh. At Fortmann they take the largest number of eggs 
and, of course, they have the largest number of men. During the 
spawning season there is a special force, and I should imagine that 
they have a dozen or fifteen men on hand then. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



11 



Mr. Wickersham. How much do they pay them ? 

Mr. Marsh. I don't know. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many laborers have they? 

Mr. Marsh. I don't know. There is a superintendent, a foreman, 
and perhaps one or two more experienced men, while the rest you 
might call laborers. 

Mr. Wickersham. That shows you about what it costs to run a 
hatchery, and I wanted to call your attention to that. 

The Chairman. Judge, do you know what it costs to construct a 
hatchery building to begin with ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I could not give the details of it, but it is 
a cheaply constructed building. 

The Chairman. I didn't know but that you might be able to take 
a typical building, knowing the dimensions of the building, and ascer- 
tain how much it would cost to construct it, and then be able to 
ascertain what the equipment would cost installed. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would much prefer to trust to Mr. Marsh's 
judgment upon that. 

I want to also call the attention of the committee to the report of 
the salmon pack for 1909 in Alaska. The report shows that the 
total number of cases put up in Alaska for 1909 was 2,363,612 cases, 
of which the Alaska Packers' Association put up 1,079,103, not quite 
half. 

Mr. Browne. About 48 per cent, Judge. I have the figures upon 
that running back for several years. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, I desire to have that statement go into 
the record. It is not long and will give the committee the exact 
details of the Alaska salmon pack for 1909. 

Alaska canned salmon pack, 1909. 









Kings, 
all 

shapes. 


Reds. 


Company. 


Cannery locations. XM " tt ^ST" ™' 

i 


1-pound 
tails. 


1-pound 
flats. 


i-pound 
flats. 






25, 248 

4,838 
4,410 


857,232 

40, 225 
45,284 

650 






tion. 

Alaska Fish Packing Co 

Alaska- Portland Packing 
Association. 


Nushugak 

do 

Lake Bay 

Yes Bav 

Taku 

Nushugak 

Haines 

Chatham 

Metlakahtla 

Four canneries 














.do 






Burkhardt, C A. & Co.. 


.do 


39 


8,102 










7,344 
37, 638 

6,966 

20,973 

3,526 

170,975 

191,289 

6,534 

44,398 

344 

38, 000 


5,381 








4,480 




Association. 




10, 105 


4,965 


Myers, Geo. T. & Co 


....do 














North Alaska Salmon Co. . . 


San Francisco. 
Seattle 


3,107 
4,888 


1,1144 
12,035 


3,095 


North Pacific T. & P. Co... 












.do 


359 

112 






Pacific Coast and North- 
western Packing Co. 


Petersburg 

Excursion Inlet. . . 
Pt. Ellis 


Minneapolis 


4,455 


1,557 


Pillar Bay Packing Co 

Bristol Bay Packing Co ... . 
Red Salmon Canning Co. . . 
Shakan Salmon Co 


do 




1,350 
33, 000 
29, 520 

1,267 
22,292 
41,817 


2,569 












.do 


396 










4,555 
2,438 


915 


Thlinket Packing Co 


Funter Bav 




271 


2,71S 


Yakutat & S. Ry. Co 




676 










Total 


48, 148 


1,608,726 


42,582 


13,926. 











12 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



Alaska canned salmon pack, 1909 — Continued. 





Cannery loca- 
tions. 


Headquarters 
address. 


Cohoes. 


Pinks. 


Chums. 




Company. 


1-pound 1-pound 
tails. | flats. 


Total. 


Alaska Packers' Asso- 
ciation. 
Alaska Fish Packing Co. 


All canneries 

Nushugak 

do 


San Francisco. . . 


16,860 




106, 106 

4,484 
5,789 

19,429 
14, 743 
6,008 
6,419 


13,657 

4,228 
4,014 

1,514 

21, 628 

180 

6,572 


1,079,103 

49,547 
56,807 

25,886 


Portland 

do 


1,324 

1,579 

2,550 

7,011 

459 

1,418 

1,206 

640 





ing Association. 
Barnes, F. C 




Burkhardt, C. A. &Co.. 


Yes Bay 

Taku 


do 


29,448 
25,804 




Nushugak 




48, 996 


ers' Association. 
Colombia Canning Co... 
Myers, Geo. T. & Co.... 

Metlakahtla Ind. Co 

North Alaska Salmon Co 




24,968 

73,306 

9,706 

179, 620 




do 




29,499 
5,360 
1,399 

94,097 

29,566 


Metlakahtla 

Four canneries.. 
All canneries 

Klawack 


Metlakahtla 

San Francisco. . . 




Seattle 


1,650 
1,925 


648 


311, 179 


Co. 
North Pacific T. & P. Co. 

Naknek Packing Co 

Pacific Coast and North- 
western Packing Co. 

Pacific Am. Fish Co 

Pillar Bay Packing Co.. 
Bristol Bay Packing Co. 


San Francisco. . . 
do 


38,025 
44,757 
32,306 

55,700 

30,254 


Petersburg 

Excursion Inlet. 
Pt. Ellis 


Minneapolis 

Bellingham 


1,136 

900 
C35 


558 


13,233 

10, 000 
22, 470 


10,911 

6,800 
3,230 


Koggiung 




33,000 
30, 892 

39, 474 
94,228 
50,C05 


do 






976 

30, 662 

44,530 

1,317 


1,801 
14,294 


Co. 




Seattle 


274 
7,685 
0.795 




Thlinket Packing Co.... 
Yakutat & S. Ry. Co... 


Funter Bay 


Portland 








Total 


54,047 


1,206 


506, 147 


88, 829 


2,363,611 















Then below that is the Alaska Packers' Association pack for 1909, 
and that contains the amount of their pack in Puget Sound added. 

The Chairman. Do their figures show the pack as to the various 
kinds of salmon ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and it shows that they put up the most val- 
uable kinds of salmon. It shows, for instance, that of the king salmon 
in Alaska, there were 48,148 cases put up. That is the most valuable 
Of the whole 48,148 cases, the Alaska Packers' Association put up 
25,248, or more than half. Of the red salmon there were 1,608,726 
cases put up, of which they put up 857,232 cases, or more than half. 

The Chairman. I haven't yet clear in my mind the distinction 
between the king salmon and the red salmon. I understood that 
the king salmon was the red salmon. 

Mr. Wickersham. My friend Doctor Evermann will give you the 
best information upon that. 

Doctor Evermann. I will make a statement in regard to the dis- 
tinct species. All of the salmon are more or less red with reference 
to the color of the flesh, but they differ in external color at different 
times. The king salmon in the Columbia River is called the chinook, 
which in the Sacramento River is called the Sacramento salmon, and 
the largest species of it run up to 90 pounds in weight. Its flesh is a 
good salmon color. The most abundant species in Alaska is the one 
which is called the "red" salmon or the "sockeye" salmon, which 
reaches a weight of about 7 pounds. Its flesh is a little deeper red 
when in fine condition, than that of the king salmon, but as it nears 
the breeding season, that salmon becomes quite red externally, and 
it is a different shade of red from the color of the meat, a sort of livid 
red, and it is that color all over the body, while the head is of an 
olive color during the breeding season. That is the reason that it is 
called the red salmon, not because the flesh is red, but because it is 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 13 

red externally during the breeding season. And as to the other 
salmon, the silver or coho salmon, it is very much like the king 
salmon in external appearance, but the meat is red but not so red 
as the red or king salmon. 

The Chairman. The "red" salmon is really a sort of a trade term, 
then, and applies more particularly to the external appearance ? 

Doctor Evermann. The term "red" salmon has been used rather 
loosely to apply to all sorts of brands. 

The Chairman. I suppose the average person at large is not able 
to discriminate very much. 

Doctor Evermann. No. Then comes the humpback salmon, still 
a little less red as to the meat, and then the dog salmon still less red. 
There are practically five species in Alaska. I have a scrapbook, 
however, of salmon labels, of more than a thousand different kinds 
which have been used in Alaska, and Puget Sound, and elsewhere on 
the Pacific coast. One label even shows a choice "Hudson River" 
salmon, which was used in Alaska but does not exist now. The 
pure-food law cut that Out. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to call your attention to the fact that 
next to the Alaska Packers' Association, the Northwestern Fisheries 
Company — the Guggenheim Alaska Syndicate Company — puts up the 
next largest pack, and they only put up one-third. 

The Chairman. The Northwestern Fisheries Company is a corpora- 
tion incorporated where % 

Mr. Wickersham. I don't know. It has its headquarters in 
Seattle, but I don't know where it is incorporated. I want to call the 
attention of the committee to a statement made by Mr. John Rosene, 
of Seattle, who organized the Northwestern Fisheries Company. 
This statement is contained in a recent document in which he uses 
this language [reads]: 

In 1905 we organized the Northwestern Fisheries Company, out of the wreck of the 
Pacific Packing and Navigation Company. I did this at the solicitation of a large 
New York banking house. It took me two years to create order out of chaos and 
enforce sensible business methods in exchange for stupidity; but after two years the 
Northwestern Fisheries Company was making net earnings at the rate of over 25 per 
cent per annum, and is still doing so, and the entire salmon industry in Alaska is on a 
better basis than ever before, largely through my efforts. 

The Chairman. Where are their canneries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Their canneries are in Alaska very near to the 
canneries of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

The Chairman. Do you know how many they have 1 

Mr. Wickersham. It hink they have — how many, Mr. Marsh, seven ? 

Mr. Marsh. I can count them up; there are several. 

The Chairman. Please put that in the record. 

Will you please state what the capitalization of this Northwestern 
Fisheries Company is ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No: I can not. 

Now, I have here a statement showing the amount of salmon 
shipped 

Mr. Marsh. The Northwestern Fisheries Company has eight can- 
neries. 

The Chairman. Please state, Mr. Marsh, where those canneries are 
located. 

Mr. Marsh. Orca, Uyak, Chignik, Nushagak, Quadra, Hunter Bay, 
Santa Ana, and Dundas Bay. Pages 11 and 12 of the report for the 
fisheries of Alaska for 1909 will show that. 



14 FISHEEIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Alaska Packers' canneries are mentioned 
in their report, and it will go in the record. I want to call atten- 
tion of the committee to the statement made in the Pacific Fisher- 
man of the amount of canned salmon shipped foreign. 

San Francisco and Puget Sound alone, for the year 1909, shipped 
salmon to the value of $5,237,725 from those two ports. It does not 
necessarily follow that that was all Alaska salmon, but I wanted to 
call your attention to that because that is all the testimony that I 
have on that subject. 

The Chairman. What other salmon would it be than that in 
Alaska and the two or three rivers south of there ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It might be Puget Sound salmon or Columbia 
River salmon. 

The Chairman. I know; but what relation as to the catch does the 
Puget Sound catch bear to the Alaska catch ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, it is very much smaller. I will give it to 
you. The Alaska pack for 1909 was 2,363,611 cases. The Puget 
Sound pack for 1909 was 1,582,010 cases. The Columbia River 
pack for 1909 was 294,879 cases. The Oregon and Washington coast 
pack for 1909 was 101,615 cases. In other words, there was a greater 
pack from Alaska than from all those other territories together. 

Now I want to call the attention of the committee to the report 
made by Mr. Henry W. Peabody, of London, England, it being the 
annual report of the salmon market of Great Britain, dated January 
8, 1910, and to that portion of it relating to Alaska salmon [reads]: 

The Alaska market opened in January on a very satisfactory basis. Stocks were 
light and the demand was good. Sales were reported at 22.6 spot; at 21.3 for salmon 
to arrive. 

And then it goes on showing the condition of the Alaska salmon 
prices in London, England. Then it says: 

The disposal of the 1909 pack of red Alaska is one of the most remarkable features 
of the salmon trade. Prices were made on the 26th of August on the same domestic 
basis as in 1908. Within one week of this date it is safe to say that the whole of the 
large pack of red Alaska had passed from first hands. The English buyers were 
eager to take a larger portion of salmon than was available for them, and their pur- 
chases of A. P. A. at 20.6 and outside brands at 20.3 will show the packers a more 
favorable return than the domestic of $1.15 less 1J and 5 per cent. While our trade 
on this side were quite willing to pay an advanced price to get further supplies of 
salmon, it was practically impossible to get any offers at all of red Alaska salmon one 
week after the opening price was named. 

They were sold within a week. 

I wish also to call the attention of the committee to the statement 
of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of April 20, 1910, in relation to the 
halibut fleet returning to Seattle with a $500,000 catch. The Wash- 
ington and Seattle catch is one of the greatest in the world. I want 
this statement to go into the report for the purpose of showing a 
statement made upon that by the Seattle paper itself. 

The Chairman. Do they say what portion of that catch comes 
from Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no; it is impossible to get all of that. 

The Chairman. I didn't know but that they might have done so. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; not at all. It is only possible to get some 
evidence along those lines which would justify the statement I am 
making to the committee. 

The Chairman. Are there halibut banks south of Alaska ? 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 15 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir; there are several banks off the Straits 
of Fuca and on the west coast of Vancouver Island, then up the 
Hecate Straits, and the Aleutian Islands, but principally off Van- 
couver Island. 

The Chairman. Are they extensive as compared with the Alaskan 
banks ? 

Doctor Evermann. They are the ones which are the most fre- 
quented by the fishermen now, and as far up as the Hecate Straits. 
Beyond that they are not frequented. 

The Chairman. How far north ? 

Doctor Evermann. Prett} T well up into southeast Alaska. 

The Chairman. Have you any idea what proportion of the catch 
is in Alaskan waters ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have not the figures, but the larger catch on 
the west coast is in the British Columbia waters, and the Canadian 
Pacific Railroad runs what they call the "Halibut Express," from 
Vancouver to Boston, "taking coals to Newcastle," you might say. 

The Chairman. Referring to the catch that Judge Wickersham 
spoke of, is that an American or British catch ? 

Doctor Evermann. It is both. It is the catch off the west coast 
of Vancouver Island by those vessels that come up from Seattle, and 
it is not in American waters. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not complaining that it is not an American 
catch, but as to two things, first, that we are not given any credit for 
it in Alaska, and second, that we do not get any other benefit. 

The Chairman. I didn't know but that the Judge was intending 
to apply that to an argument that perhaps the halibut supply was 
being reduced in Alaska, and thought perhaps that might be a part of 
your argument. 

Mr. Wickersham. Generally, of course, that is the idea, but not 
specifically. 

The Chairman. Is there any restriction as to American fishing in 
British waters ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, indeed, there is. 

Doctor Evermann. There is a very acute situation up there now. 

The Chairman. This large catch referred to was taken indis- 
criminately in the waters of both nations ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Probably, but largely in Alaska. We have had 
a very acute situation there, as Doctor Evermann says, in respect to 
the Americans fishing in British Columbian waters. They have 
stopped it. 

Doctor Evermann. A portion of the halibut catch that comes into 
Seattle was taken off the west coast of Vancouver. 

Mr. Wickersham. Possibly, and another portion in our own waters. 

The Chairman. Doctor Evermann, is it your idea that the bulk of 
that catch is from Hecate Straits southward 1 

Doctor Evermann. I am not in a position to say where the large 
part comes from; but I can say this, that the halibut banks within 
the Alaska waters are important and worth very serious consideration. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me read you the first sentence from this 
article in the Post-Intelligencer of April 20, 1910 [reads]: 

The Seattle halibut fleet, which has been fishing off Petersburg since November, 
will arrive next week, and the season's catch, which amounts approximately to 800 
tons and will exceed |500,000 in value, will be discharged on Seattle docks and 
placed on the market. 



16 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Doctor Evermann. That is all from Alaskan waters. 

The Chairman. Are there any hatcheries in connection with the 
halibut industry ? 

Doctor Evermann. No; there is no method of artificially propa- 
gating halibut that has been developed. 

The Chairman. Has it been developed anywhere ? 

Doctor Evermann. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In practice, in the history of the halibut fisheries, 
has it been found that they practically maintain themselves, 
reproduce themselves sufficiently to keep up with the catch ? 

Doctor Evermann. Not wholly so; no, sir. The halibut fisheries 
on the east coast have diminished so that halibut now are shipped 
from the Pacific coast to Boston. 

Mr. Wickersham. I hoped to have Captain Whorf here, but he 
declined to come. He tells me that for sixteen years he has been 
entirely familiar with the fishing in Cook Inlet, and during that 
period the halibut has been almost entirely exterminated from Cook 
Inlet waters. Doctor Evermann and Mr. Marsh may know some- 
thing about that. 

I now wish to call the attention of the committee to a petition 
signed by Rasmus Eng, and 800 other fishermen, and I desire to read 
the substance of it, without the names, of course, into the record 
[reads] : 

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: 

We, the undersigned citizens and residents of the United States residing within the 
Territory of Alaska, do hereby petition the National Congress to abolish floating and sta- 
tionary "fish traps within the waters of Alaska, for the following reasons: 

1. It goes to show from experience had on the Columbia River, Puget Sound, and 
Fraser River, British Columbia, that the traps are exterminators of fish, and not only 
destroy the big and valuable fish, but also catch a large number of young and small 
salmon and other species of fish to be thrown away; and traps, therefore, ought to be 
prohibited by law. 

2. The trap gives its owners a monopoly on the salmon fisheries, and thereby throws 
throws the seine and gill-net men out of employment. 

3. The fisheries, next to the mines, constitute Alaska's largest natural wealth; and 
•on general principles we demand their protection. 

4. On Icy Straits, Chatham Strait, Lynn Canal, and its tributary waters are located 
upward of 40 stationary traps, and around Ketchikan 15 floating traps were in operation 
during the season, and each trap throws 15 gill-net men out of employ, and the 60 traps 
deprive 900 fishermen of summer's work; not only these, but numerous traps were also 
in operation at Bering Sea, Kodiak Island, Cook Inlet, and its tributary waters, which 
goes to show that the fishing industry of Alaska is in the hands of a ruinous monopoly 
that runs its business strictly in opposition to the Constitution of the United States. 

5. We, the bona fide settlers and residents of Alaska, who have come to this north 
land for the purpose of making the country a future home for ourselves, wives, and 
children, demand that Alaska's natural wealth be preserved for Alaskans; and we 
do therefore register our protest against a cannery combine which comes here in the 
spring of the year with its cheap labor brigade of Japanese and Chinese, and in the 
fall of the year leaves for warmer climates, and for each year strips the country of a 
large part of its natural wealth without paying taxes for the purpose of developing the 
natural resources of the country. 

6. The natives of Alaska are an industrious class of Indians, and their main support 
are the inland salmon fisheries; but allow the fish traps to keep up their slaughter- 
house business, and the Indians will be deprived of their old-time food supply and 
subjected to starvation, or otherwise become a burden on the Government. 

And now, for the reasons stated above, we, the undersigned Alaskans, earnestly 
pray that the existing evils may be speedily removed by action of Congress without 
delay. 

That petition is signed by 800 fishermen from southeastern Alaska, 
and I earnestlv indorse their demand for legislation. 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS 

RELATING TO 

FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS 
IN ALASKA 



STATEMENT OF 

HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM 

DELEGATE FROM ALASKA 



MAY 9, 1910 



SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



Committee ox Territories, 

Monday, May 9, 1910. 
The committee was called to order at 10.40 a. m., Hon. Edward L. 
Hamilton (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, DELEGATE FEOM 
ALASKA; DR. B. W. EVERMANN, AND MR. MILLARD C. MARSH, 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. Wickersham. In respect to the fisheries in Alaska, I want to 
say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Fureseth is here this morning, repre- 
senting the International Seamen's Union. He has a statement 
to make to the committee, and I have said to him that I would present 
the matter to the committee in order that he might be heard as soon 
as possible. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a table showing the present 
revenue which would be derived from the fishing trade in Alaska 
under the present law if the taxes were all paid ; and a table showing, 
upon the same catch, what would be paid under the bill which I have 
offered. I desire to have those tables go into the record and be 
printed. 

The Chairmax. Without objection that will be done. 

(Following are the tables referred to:) 

Table showing revenue from Alaska fisheries under act of June 26, 1906. 



Product, a 


Quantity .a 


Rate of taxation. 


Revenue. 


Value of 
product, a 


Salmon: 


2,606,972 cases... 




$104,278.88 

3, 907. 25 

586. 13 
293.64 


$10,185,783 




135,949 barrels 


VlO cents per barrel 

do 


Pickled 

Fish oil 

Fertilizer 


\6,247 half barrels 

5, 861 J barrels c... 


352, 707 
76, 036 


1,468£ tons 


20 cents per ton 


46,126 






Total 


109, 065. 90 


d 10, 660, 652 


1 





a Quantity and value of product taken from Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 645: "The Fisheries 
of Alaska in 1908." 

scanners may exempt themselves from cash taxation on canned salmon by releasing salmon fry in the 
waters of Alaska at the ratio of 10 cases to each 1,000 fry liberated, and in this way the greater part of the 
tax is usually paid. 

e Quantity "of fish oil given in Document No. 645 as being 2,256,600 pounds. Barrels offish oil weigh 
approximately 385 pounds each. 

dRate of taxation on total value of product is 12 mills. 



4 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Table showing revenue obtainable from Alaska fisheries and other sources under H. R. 22579. 



Product.^ 


Quantity. 


Rate of taxation. 


Revenue. 


Value of 
product. 


Salmon: 


2,606,972 cases 




$130, 348. 60 

7,814.50 

2, 256. 60 

734. 10 


$10,185,783 

352, 707 

76, 036 

46, 126 


Pickled b 


7,814,500 pounds 

2,256,600 pounds 


10 cents per 100 pounds.. 
do 


Fish oil 




1.468£ tons 










Total 


141,153.80 


10, 0C0, 652 









Additional sources of revenue proposed in H. R. 22579, none of which are taxed undtr 

act of 1906. 







Rate of taxation. 


Revenue. 


Value of 
product. 


Rate of 
taxation 
(per cent 
in mills). 


Fish products c 


16,219,710pounds.... 


10 cents per 100 
pounds. 


$16, 219. 71 

13.75 
636.40 


$479,306.00 

9,393.00 
202.761.00 


0.033 
.001 




63,640pounds .do... 


.003 


Fishing boats d 


2,856 (number) 
64,189 (tonnage) 

102 (number) 

60,842 yards 




2,856.00 557.011.00 


.005 


Fishing vessels e 

Fish traps 


$1 per ton 

$100 each 


64, 189. 00 

10, 200. 00 

608. 42 

757. 50 

2,650.56 

61,608.00 


2,666,865.00 

203,675.00 

39,726.00 

49, 414. 00 

102, 825. 00 


.024 
.05 




1 cent per yard 

do 


.015 




75,750 yards, 


.015 


Gill nets h 


265,056 yards 


do 


.025 


Road poll tax i 


10,268 men 


$6 per capita 










Total 


159,739.63 


4,310,976.00 













Mineral.;' 


Production, 1908. 


Rate of taxation. 


Revenue. 


Coal 


4,000 tons 




$40. 00 


Copper 


2,525 tons 


10 cents per ton 

i of 1 per cent of gross 


252. 50 


Gold 


$3,645,000 


18,225.00 








18,517.50 



a Quantity and value of product taken from Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 645, "The Fisheries of 
Alaska in 1908." 

b Quantity of salmon pickled given in Document No. 645 as 35,949 barrels and 6,247 half barrels. Barrels 
contain approximately 200 pounds of fish and half barrels 100 pounds. 

c Includes halibut, herring, cod, certain salmon products, and all varieties of fish, exclusive of canned 
and pickled salmon. 

d Includes only small boats propelled by oars or sails. 

« Includes fishing and transporting vessels, of which there are 256 engaged in the fisheries. 

/ 127 in operation. 

g 158 in operation. 

A 143 in operation. 

i Distributed as follows: Whites, 5,811; Japanese, 2,439; Chinese, 2,018. 3,069 Indians exempt from 
taxation. Total number of men engaged in fisheries, 13,337. 

i Figures on mineral production of Alaska taken from pages 22 and 26, Geological Survey Bulletin No. 
379, "Investigation of Mineral Resources in Alaska in 1908." 

SUMMAKY. 

Estimated income under H. R. 22579: 

Fisheries $300, 893. 43 

Mining 18, 517. 50 

$319 410. 93 

Income under act of 1906 109* 065! 90 

Balance in favor of H. R. 22579 210, 345. 03 

Total value fisheries products, 1908 (and taxable equipment thereof) 14, 971, 628. 00 

Total value taxable mineral products, 1908 4, 365, 200. 00 

Mills. 

Rate of taxation on fishery products and taxable equipment under H. R. 22579 20 

Rate of taxation on mineral products 4 

Shore and accessory property of the value of $6,682,961 not taxed in either the act of 1906 or H. R. 22579. 



PISHEBIES AND OTHES OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 5 

Mr. Wickersham. I will now call the attention of the committee 
to those tables very briefly and to the canned salmon first. Under 
the law as it now stands the canned salmon of last year's pack at 
4 cents per case would bring a revenue amounting to $104,278.88. 
That is the total amount of the pack at 4 cents per case. The same 
pack at 5 cents per case would bring $130,348.60, or something like 
$26,000 moje. The pickled salmon under the present rate of taxation 
would bring an amount of $3,907.25. Under my bill it would amount 
to $7,S14 — in other words, an increase of a little less than $4,000 only. 
The fish oil at the present rate of 10 cents per barrel amounts to 
$586.13. Under the proposed bill it would amount to $2,256, or 
about $1,500 increase. The fertilizer at the present rate brings into 
the United States Treasury $293.64 only. 

Mr. Lloyd. With reference to the fertilizer, do you concur in the 
view that it would be well to encourage the making of fertilizer out 
of the waste and offal? 

Mr. Wickersham. Undoubt dly. That wo d I add greatly to the 
purity of the waters, ami put to some benefit the fish and the refuse 
now utterly destroyed and thrown away. 

Mr. Lloyd. As a matter of fact we receive no revenue from it now. 
Why would it not be a good plan, by a proper limitation, to make it 
free, hedging it about so that no good fish shall be taken for that 
purpose ? 

Mr. Wickersham. But that is the trouble now, that a large amount 
of the good fish is utilized. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is what I was trying to get at. What we want, 
as I understand it, in the protection of the fishing interests of Alaska 
is not to get the revenue but get the fertilizer, and to get the fertilizer 
from the proper sources. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; but I think they ought to pay a little 
something. I don't think they ought to carry on many kinds of 
business without paying something, even if it is a very small amount, 
simply to give the Government control over the matter. 

The Chairman. You also made some reference to making oil out 
of the offal also. 

Mr. Yyickersham. Yes; it ought to be utilized in some way. There 
has been an immense amount of offal thrown away, all of which pol- 
lutes the waters. 

The Chairman. In order to encourage the use of that the sugges- 
tion was made to exempt that from taxation, for apparently there 
is no other way of compelling the close utilization of this waste and 
offal. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not object to any arrangement that the 
committee desires to make about that. 

Mr. Lloyd. The reason that I asked my question about it was to 
get at this point: There has been a good deal of testimony here with 
reference to the dead fish and sometimes the stench resulting. Some 
kind of a scheme should be resorted to so that those fish could be 
used and that stench avoided; and it would be a source of benefit 
to Alaska and it would result in benefit to the country if fertilizer 
could be made from it. It seems to me that that might be one 
industry that we should encourage without taxation. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not object to that; I think it ought to be 
encouraged. 

48684—10 9 



6 FISHERIES AND OTHEE OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

The Chairman. With regard to that suggestion, I believe you also 
included the use of fish which died in natural course after spawning. 

Mr. Wickersham. But of course that is impracticable, Mr. Chair- 
.man. You can not go out through the bushes and woods and along 
the streams, pick up dead fish, and utilize them for fertilizer. That 
is impracticable. 

Mr. Lloyd. I appreciate that that would be true of fish that had 
reached the shore, but that would not be true as to fish in the water, 
would it ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no; of course not. 

Mr. Houston. Would there not be quite a large amount of fish 
that would be classed with the offal, fish of no account whatever, and 
which would be worthless ? 

Mr. Wickersham. And that is just what I am afraid of — that they 
will undertake to do that, including everything they catch, if you give 
give them a law broad enough. 

Mr. Houston. What would you suggest to remedy that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. A most rigid inspection. 

The Chairman. I think the suggestion came from Mr. Marsh, and 
I would like to inquire of him if he could make some suggestion that 
"will prevent the mixing of the fish that might otherwise be utilized 
us offal and waste. 

Mr. Marsh. The present section of the statute provides against 
wanton waste, and it ought to cover that. Of course it would 
require an inspector to look after it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and that is very much like passing a law 
saying that everybody shall be good. 

Mr. Houston. Would it be at all possible that fish could be taken 
that could be used in the market and be canned or pickled ? Would 
it be practicable at all to take those fish and convert them in offal 
without great loss? Wouldn't it be much more practicable to 
pickle them and can them ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Houston. Why should you be afraid of good fish being put in 
the offal ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not afraid of that, but I know they do it. 

Mr. Houston. But does it pay them to do it ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It pays a man who is running a fertilizer factory 
to put everything he catches into it to make the fertilizer. 

Mr. Houston. But could he not get more out of the fish by canning 
or pickling them ? 

Mr. Wickersham. He might if he is running a cannery, but he is 
not running a cannery. He can only make money out of their use 
as a fertilizer; he is not in the canning business. 

Mr. Houston. Oh, I see. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, do you desire to make a suggestion in 
regard to that ? 

Mr. Marsh. We proposed the same thing that Judge Wickersham 
has in mind, to forbid the use of any whole food fish in the manu- 
facture of fertilizer and oil. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; it ought to be done. 

The Chairman. You intend to make some suggestion, Mr. Marsh, 
;as to a change in the existing law that will do that ? 

Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 7 

Mr. Wickersham. Under the present law the fertilizer manufac- 
tured last year brought only $293 into the revenues of the Govern- 
ment. Under my bill that same amount would bring in $734. In 
other words, upon those items which are now covered by the law of 
the United States in force in Alaska, which paid taxes last year of 
about $109,000, under my bill would pay $141,153.80, or something 
over $30,000 of an increase. 

But there are other items which I have included in my bill which 
are not covered by the old act. There is a vast amount of shore and 
accessory property in Alaska which is not taxed. We now tax the 
canned salmon and the pickled salmon, the fish oil and the fertilizer, 
but there are a great many items which are not taxed. For instance, 
walrus hides, whalebone, fishing boats, fishing vessels, haul seines, 
purse sienes, gill nets, and things of that kind, as well as other prop- 
erty which is known as shore and accessory property; very largely 
all the property which is utilized in the fisheries business in Alaska 
is not taxed at all. 

Now, I have not, in this bill, undertaken to tax all of that, and I 
have not gone nearly as far as I might have gone in bringing in all 
of their property under the rule of taxation. I have only included 
a few things. And in the doing of that I have taken the report of 
the Fisheries Bureau for a statement of the property in the invest- 
ment in the Alaska fisheries for different years. I have taken those 
items of property which are contained in the report of the Bureau of 
Fisheries, and the valuations of those properties, as given by the 
bureau, and upon those valuations I have figured out about the rate 
that ought to be assessed against that property. I do not pretend 
that my bill is at all perfect. There are one or two amendments 
that I myself want to make in it after going over this testimony, 
and I hope that the committee will, when we get into executive 
session, take all of these items and go over them carefully. And I 
would also like to have Doctor Evermann and Mr. Marsh submit a 
statement upon this taxation as to what they think is a proper 
taxation of these properties in Alaska. 

The Chairman. You will remember Mr. Marsh's suggestion that 
the tax upon the products might be so adjusted as to be a tax upon 
the machinery of production. You have not discussed that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No. I have provided in my bill that there 
should be a tax of 10 cents per hundred pounds upon all the fish 
carried out of Alaska to Seattle, the coast cities, and to other coun- 
tries, not including, of course, the canned fish, because that is already 
taxed. At 10 cents per hundred pounds, that would amount to 
$16,219. The walrus ivory is a new item to be taxed. That would 
amount to about $13.75. 

The Chairman. How about that walrus ivory, is it a pretty large 
item of commerce ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no; a very small one. But the walrus 
are being exterminated in Alaska just as fast as they can get to them, 
and i^ will only be a few years when there will not be a walrus left in 
those waters. 

The Chairman. Just for the purpose of getting the ivory ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. Doctor Evermann can make a statement 
about that, and I wish he would. 



8 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Doctor Evermann. The walrus hide is of some value, but, as Judge 
Wickersham has said, the walrus is almost an extinct animal in 
Alaska now. 

Mr. Wickersham. And, as Doctor Evermann knows, it is the one 
animal that the Esquimaux have been depending upon in the Arctic 
country. 

The Chairman. Have you any idea that a tax on walrus ivory 
would have a tendency to restore the walrus in those waters ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Not at all, for it would only amount to $13.75, 
as I have shown. 

Doctor Evermann. But it would be desirable to have a closed 
season for ten years upon the walrus. 

The Chairman. Then whv not have a provision as to that in this 
bill? 

Mr. Wickersham. There ought to be a provision of that kind. 

The Chairman. Then let us have it. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Eskimo live more upon the walrus than 
upon any other animal in those northern waters, and in a short time 
you have got to begin to appropriate money for the care of the 
Eskimo, because those animals upou which they live are being 
exterminated. 

Now, as to the whalebone, there are 63,640 pounds of whalebone 
reported in the Bureau of Fisheries report, at 1 cent per pound, or 
$636. As to the fishing boats, 2,856 small boats are used in fishing. 

Mr. Lloyd. Referring to the whalebone, where do you get it ? 

Mr. Wickersham. In these northern waters, and most of it north 
of Alaska; that is, north of Point Barrow. 

Mr. Lloyd. What else does the animal furnish excepting the bone 
which is called whalebone ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Nothing, excepting oil; and I do not think they 
try out the oil at all, do they, Doctor ? 

Doctor Evermann. On Vancouver Island they do, but 

Mr. Wickersham. I know, but I am referring to the northern 
waters of Alaska. 

Doctor Evermann. On Admiralty Island I understand that they 
utilize every part of the whale for various purposes, and for food. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is there any good reason why the whale should be 
preserved ? 

Doctor Evermann. It should not be pushed to the limit of being 
exterminated . 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it reaching that limit now under present conditions ? 

Doctor Evermann. Some of the species are being exterminated, 
yes; and some regulations governing that matter ought to be pro- 
vided. 

The Chairman. Has not the whale such a large range that while 
we might put certain restrictions upon the catch, within our juris- 
diction, as long as conditions continue as they are outside of our 
jurisdiction, the extermination or the inroads upon them might 
continue just the same? 

Doctor Evermann. It would be desirable to place very close 
restrictions within our jurisdiction, because the destruction of the 
whale beyond our 3-mile limit will be great enough to tax the natural 
reproductiveness of all species of the whale. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 9 

The Chairman. [ was wondering if our regulations would not 
prove practically infinitesimal in their effect, and therefore be of no 
benefit whatever, taking- in consideration what is being done outside 
the 3-mile limit. 

Doctor E verm ANN. There are certain regulations which, I think, 
we could impose which would have a good effect; for instance, we 
could have regulations which would bar any foreign vessels from 
coming into our 3-mile limit for the purpose of preparing the product 
for market. And I might say that recently certain legislation in 
Norway has resulted in putting a very large whaling fleet out of com- 
mission. The result is 'that those whaling vessels are now casting 
about to find a place where they may do business. It is learned that 
a number of them have proposed to come to Alaska, and letters have 
come to the officials of the Government recently asking what rights 
they would have within the 3-mile zone. So that that difficulty is an 
imminent one. 

The Chairman. What is to prevent us, in this legislation, if we 
should agree upon a bill, from incorporating something in the bill that 
might be of benefit in connection with that whale subject? Could 
we do it? 

Doctor Evermann. It is possible to do so. 

The Chairman. Will you kindly take that into consideration in 
connection with the other matter? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. W t ickersham. Now, Mr. Chairman, referring to Bureau of 
Fisheries report for 1908, page 8, it is shown that there are 2,856 
small boats utilized in the Alaska fisheries. Their value is given at 
$557,011. They are not taxed now. I have proposed a tax of $1 
each upon them. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are you sure that they are not taxed in San Francisco, 
or other places where they return ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I don't know, but I do know that they are 
not taxed in Alaska. I am not interested in trying to tax them 
anywhere excepting in their capacity as part of the Alaska fishing 
fleet. 

The Chairman. Where are they kept? 

Mr. Wickersham. In Alaska, I am informed. 

The Chairman. All of the year? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. In the canneries all the year. 

The Chairman. That relates to small boats, does it not? 

Mr. Wickersham. That relates to the small boats; yes. 

The Chairman. How many of those small boats are ordinarily 
used in the canneries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. All of them. 

The Chairman. How many is that? 

Mr. Wickersham. Two thousand eight hundred and fifty-six. 

The Chairman. How many would that be per cannery ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I don't know as to that. 

Mr. Marsh. A cannery might have 15 or 20 fishing boats. 

Mr. Wickersham. How long are those boats, can you say, Mr. 
Fureseth ? 

Mr. Fureseth. Twenty-four to 25 feet long, I should say. 

The Chairman. Are there as many as 60 used at a cannery ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I should say yes. 



10 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

The Chairman. And those boats remain within the Alaskan juris- 
diction the whole year ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am informed they do. 

The Chairman. The other boats of course run back and forth down 
to the cities below and are taxed. 

Mr. Wickersham. Those small boats ought to be taxed. If they 
were taxed, they would bring in $2,856, $1 apiece; and they are worth 
$200 apiece. So that you can see what a $1 taxation amounts to as 
against a value of $200. 

Now as to the vessels that I have proposed to tax at the rate of $1 
per ton. On this same page of the report for 1908, under the heading 
of "transporting vessels/' the number of steamers and launches is 
placed at 160, with a tonnage of 6,422, and a value of $1,361,850. 
They are not taxed. 

As to the sailing vessels, there are 49 with a tonnage of 

Mr. Browne. May I interrupt you there for a moment, Judge? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. All of the fishing fleet that goes from San Francisco 
is taxed under the state law. I am not speaking of the small boats. 

Mr. Wickersham. As I was saying, the number of sailing vessels is 
49, and the tonnage is 57,055. They are not taxed in Alaska, and 
they do not pay anything. None of those boats pay a cent to the 
support of the salmon fisheries or to the fisheries of any kind in 
Alaska. They are all included in this investment in the Alaska 
fisheries for 1908. If you would take out that value, and say it 
belongs to San Francisco when it is taxed, you would not have any 
investment excepting the shore and accessory property; that is, 
you take $12,000,000 of fish out of Alaska with a $6,000,000 invest- 
ment. 

The Chairman. You think, I take it, that the equivalent can not 
be raised by taxation upon the product. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am making all of the 
suggestions that I think ought to be made to the committee, and 
presenting this matter as well as I can put it, and I am going to rely 
upon the committee's judgment about what they will do in levying 
taxes. But I want something done to conserve and preserve the 
fisheries in Alaska. Now, let us look at it personally for a moment. 

In 1867 Alaska was purchased, and at that time the fur-seal indus- 
try was abandoned by the Russians and turned over to our people. 
At that time some of the gentlemen in California, for whom my 
friend, Mr. Browne^ now appears in part, took up the fur-seal busi- 
ness and got a contract with the United States for a monopoly of 
the fur-seal fisheries in Alaska. 

Mr. Browne. I do not want to interrupt you, Judge, but I do not 
appear for those people; but go ahead. I do not challenge the 
statement otherwise^ 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, they were all San Francisco people. 

Mr. Browne. But I do not represent them. 

Mr. Wickersham. They are all good men, Mr. Browne, and my 
friends. I have known them for ten or fifteen years, and there have 
been no better business men in the United States than they. And 
those people have grown rich out of the fur-seal fisheries in Alaska. 
The gold m the hills of California, the Alaska fur seal, and the fish in 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. II 

the waters of Alaska have largely made San Francisco what it is, 
and no small part has been due to the fisheries in Alaska. 

The Chairman. I have been very much interested in the Alaska 
fur-seal industry, and, as I understand it, the fur seals are so reduced 
now that there are not enough 

Mr. Wickersham. And so will the salmon fisheries be if they are 
neglected like the fur seals have been. 

The Chairman. But the great difficulty in the preservation of the 
seal herd has been pelagic sealing. We do have regulations concern- 
ing the taking of seal at the Pribilof Islands, and can control them 
there. 

Mr. Wickersham. Ninety per cent of all the seals that have been 
killed at the Pribilof Islands has been under the regulations made 
by our Government. 
' The Chairman. Do you think so ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I think so. What about that, Doctor 
Evermann ? 

Doctor Evermann. In recent years, since pelagic sealing started ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I mean all put together. 

Doctor Evermann. Before pelagic sealing started, of course, the 
Government allowed a certain number of bulls to be killed in a year. 
That was perfectly proper, and had no effect in diminishing the herd 
any more than would the killing of a lot of surplus roosters have upon 
a supply of chickens. The seal is polygamous, and one bull goes a 
long ways, just as in the case of the rooster. So that it is not only 
desirable, but it is better to kill the surplus males upon the Pribilof 
Islands. That is what ought to be done now if pelagic sealing should 
stop, or even if it should not stop. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, I want to call attention to the fact that 
since 1867 the fisheries in Alaska have been going on, and all the 
time have been under the charge and control of the Government. 

The Chairman. It might be well to segregate the Alaska fur 
seals, because that does not come within the scope of this inquiry. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; but I cited it as an instance of the destruc- 
tion of the sea product of Alaska, and I cited it for the purpose of 
showing to this committee now that that same destruction is going 
to result to the other fisheries in Alaska unless something is done 
about it by Congress. 

The Chairman. The Federal Government has set aside the Alaska 
fur-seal industry, and have made a contract. I think for many 
years bids have been received and contracts have been let to successful 
bidders, and they have been permitted to take a certain percentage 
of the herd, as I understand it, per annum. That has been under 
the direction, control, and regulation of the Government, so that we 
have an excellent method of control if it has operated; and if we 
had as good in relation to some of the other industries, it seems to* 
me that we would be in much better shape. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is true as to the control and regula- 
tion of the seal herds. 

Now, I want to call your attention to these vessels. There are,, 
as I say, 209 vessels used in fishing in Alaska, of the value of $2,477,000, 
which pay no tax in Alaska and do not yield a cent which goes to 
support the fisheries in Alaska. They want to subtract that and 
say, "We pay taxes now down in California;'' and yet it is part of 



12 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

the investment amounting to nearly $10,000,000 in the fisheries in 
Alaska. Subtract it and you will see how little their investment is. 
I have proposed $1 a ton upon those vessels, amounting to $64,887. 
Those vessels come into Alaskan waters. Ihey come up about April 
or May, some of them as early as April, and they go back to Cali- 
fornia in the latter part of July and August, some of them as late as 
September. So that practically one-half of their whole year's work is 
in fishing in Alaska, carrying men and provisions and everything of 
that kind to Alaska, and the men and the salmon pack come back from 
Alaska. They took out $12,000,000 from Alaska last year, and I 
think they should contribute something to the support of the country. 
They may pay taxes in California, and it may not be fair to put 
taxes upon them in Alaska. If not, other property ought to be 
taxed as an equivalent. 

Ihere are 102 fish traps in Alaska, and I have proposed to tax 
them $100 each. 

The Chairman. Will you please state to the committee what a fish 
trap is ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I think Doctor Evermann has explained that 
to the committee, how they drive lines of piling 

The Chairman. But that is another thing. That is the pound net, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It is the same thing. 

The Chairman. But they have floating traps ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; there are three kinds of traps. There is 
the stake trap, composed of piles driven solidly in the ground; the 
floating trap, and the wheel trap. There are 85 stake traps, 16 float- 
ing traps, and only 1 wheel trap; and they amount to more than 
$200,000 in value, according to this estimate made in the report of 
the Bureau of Fisheries. Those traps do not pay a cent in Alaska, 
and they are permanent fixtures in the waters of Alaska. 

The Chairman. What is a wheel trap; one which revolves and 
rolls the fish out ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Rolls the fish out in boxes. 

Mr. Browne. There is only one reported. 

Mr. Wickersham. Only one reported, but I have seen many more. 

Now, there is more than $200,000 invested in those traps in Alaska, 
and they are very destructive in their methods of fishing. I have 
been toid by gentlemen who are here in town that for every fish 
canned in Alaska two are destro} r ed, and very largely by these traps. 
I have been told by one of these gentlemen that he has stood flat- 
footed on the bottom of a trap with fish extending that high [indi- 
cating], 40 by 60 feet square, and every one of the fish thrown away. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Wickersham. Because the cannery was overcrowded, or for 
some reason they could not utilize them, and they had to be thrown 
away. And I want to say that that goes on to a, greater extent than 
cither Doctor Evermann or Mr. Marsh have any idea of. 

Mr. Lloyd. Those fish would not be likely to be destroyed if these 
men were about? 

Mr. Wickersham. Not at all; if we could have Doctor Evermann 
and Mr. Marsh in Alaska during the fishing season with a force of 
inspectors it would be of the greatest help, not only to the Govern- 
ment generally but to the fisheries of Alaska. What we ought to 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IX ALASKA. 13 

do is to give the Bureau of Fisheries greater power, and more help to 
use that power; that is what ought to he done. They are not doing 
their duty in Alaska simply because they have not the power, the 
inspectors, nor the machinery to do it with. 

Mr. Lloyd. You do not mean that they are not doing their duty 
in Alaska, but you mean that they are not privileged to do what 
they ought to do. 

Mr. Wickersham. Certainly; that is what I mean. They are 
doing all that they can do. I did not wish to be understood as say- 
ing that they are not doing their duty. 

The Chairman. But, Judge, here is the great mass of fish which 
you have described 

Mr. Wickersham. There is a mass of fish worth $12,000,000 
canned, and they throw away a large amount. 

The Chairman. But that makes me wonder why they do a thing 
like that. 

Mr. Wickersham. Wgll, of course, my information as to the 
amount of waste may be exaggerated, but it is far too much. 

The Chairman. But they go to get these fish; they are there to 
catch them; they want them canned; so why would they throw 
them away? 

Mr. Wickersham. For this reason: The fish do not run all at the 
same moment and regularly, but they run in schools. A school 
comes along and fills many of the traps at the same moment, and 
the canneries can not take care of the catch, so that they have to 
throw away the overplus. 

The Chairman. And you would do away with the trap entirely ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; upon the information presented to me I 
would prohibit traps entirely. 

The Chairman. Would you allow this pound-net arrangement 
with the wing dam ? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is the trap; that is what I am talking 
about. 

The Chairman. But the wheel trap, I take it, is of a more destruc- 
tive form. 

Mr. Wickersham. As to the wheel trap, there are only a few of 
them, and they could be managed much easier than the pound-net 
trap. Of course, I am using the strongest language possible to this 
committee, but I want the committee to understand that I am doing 
that for the purpose of trying to get into the minds of the members 
of the committee that here is a situation which needs attention. 

The Chairman. It is said that the trap ought to continue in opera- 
tion under proper restrictions. As I understand it, the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor has absolute power to control the methods 
of fishing ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, if he has, he is not doing his duty, because 
he has not the machinery to do it with. 

The Chairman. Maybe I am putting that too strong. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; you do. 

The Chairman. Will you permit me to interrupt you just a 
moment to ask Doctor Evermann how far the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor may proceed in that regulation under existing law ? 

Doctor Evermann. Under existing law the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor can prohibit the placing of a pound net closer than within 



14 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

certain distances of mouths of streams. The distance, I believe, is 
500 yards of the mouth of any red salmon stream. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, that is not entirely sufficient. 

The Chairman. Your remedy was to increase the distance. 

Doctor Evermann. Increase the distance; yes. 

The Chairman. Do you think that would be effectual ? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all you think it would be necessary to do 
in relation to this trap fishing ? 

Doctor Evermann. It does not seem to me that it would be neces- 
sary to absolutely prohibit the use of traps, but to regulate the 
placing of traps. 

The Chairman. You think that the regulation of the placing of 
traps would probably correct a good deal of the difficulty? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. If all of this business were put under the charge 
of the Bureau of Fisheries, and its inspectors were given power, and 
enough inspectors with which to exercise that power, there would 
not be any further trouble about it. They would be able to take care 
of it, and take care of it right. 

Mr. Lloyd. How much inspection is there now ? 

Mr. Wickersham. None. Mr. Cobb of the Bureau of Fisheries 
goes up there. I have been with Mr. Cobb on one of those expeditions 
where we went to the fisheries grounds on Sunday, and where we 
found 200 men fishing in violation of the law. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then they have a Sunday law up there ? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is a Sunday law; yes. They were there, 
fishing, in violation of the Sunday closing law. But what could Mr. 
Cobb do about it? There he was, by himself, 100 miles away from 
any place or any court, and he could not do anything. 

Mr. Houston. You say that you would destroy absolutely the 
traps ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I certainly would. 

Mr. Houston. Then how would you catch the fish ? 

Mr. Wickersham. In nets, just as they always have done, and then 
they would catch them as they need them. They would not get 
enormous quantities of fish in those big traps so that they would 
have to throw them away. When they catch the fish in nets, hour 
by hour and day by day, they immediately use what they are catch- 
ing; they have no surplus to throw away. And that is the fair way 
to catch them. But if the traps were under the inspection of the 
Bureau of Fisheries, and they were curtailed in their catch, it could 
be fixed so that they need not be so destructive and the great evil of 
the trap somewhat abated. 

Mr. Lloyd. That means an actual inspection instead of a theoret- 
ical inspection ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. I mean this, that if this committee 
would consult with Doctor Evermann and Mr. Marsh, and get infor- 
mation necessary in the way of recommendations concerning a 
needed force of inspectors for these fisheries, they would have some 
thing to work with. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is there not a representative of the Government who 
goes up there when these vessels go, and who stays as long as the 
vessels stay ? 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 15 

Mr. Wickersham. I don't think there is one man. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is there one ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No. I am informed not. 

Doctor Evermann. The Government has two salmon agents, an 
agent and an assistant agent. Mr. Marsh is the agent, and Mr. Cobb 
is the assistant agent. Each of those gentlemen has spent all of the 
fishing seasons there ever since he was appointed an agent of the 
Government. 

Mr. Lloyd. How does it happen that he is not there now ? 

Doctor Evermann. Mr. Cobb is there now, or is on his way there 
now. He has been on the west coast for some six weeks. Mr. Marsh 
will go if it is possible for him to get away. 

Mr. Lloyd. Now, what would prevent him from getting away ? 
I. want to get at the practical operation of the thing. There is quite 
a difference, I find, in having a thing done theoretically and having it 
done actually. If you have not enough men you ought to have them. 

Doctor Evermann. We have sent on to Nushagak Bay region three 
men to take up the workln that region for this season. That region 
is the region which Mr. Marsh was in last year and the year before, and 
we had already sent three temporary men to that same region to carry 
on the work there this year, two more than the law specifically pro- 
vides for. Mr. Cobb is on his way to southeast Alaska now. I believe 
that Mr. Cobb has been as effective in his inspection of the fishes in 
southeast Alaska as one man can be. As a result of his inspection, 
last year or the year before, more than $8,000 in fines resulted. But 
I thoroughly agree with Judge Wickersham that one man over all 
southeast Alaska, or two men, or even three men, are not sufficient. 
But we are using all that the Government gives us. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you need more ? That is what I want to get at. 

Doctor Evermann. We need more; we certainly do. When we 
send additional men to Alaska — that is, detail other men — we have to 
take them away from other work of equal importance, thus crippling 
the other work. 

Mr. Lloyd. You say that these three men that you have sent up to 
a certain region are temporary men? 

Doctor Evermann. They are taken off of other work in the bureau. 
They were taken from the Division of Fish Culture — that is, two of 
them were — and they should not have been spared from that work 
if we had the men in Alaska. But we have felt that the work in 
Alaska is so important that we have tried to get along without them. 

Mr. Lloyd. How many men, in your judgment, should be in 
Alaska in the summer to protect the fish? 

Doctor Evermann. For the absolute protection of the fish in 
Alaska there ought to be 40 wardens and inspectors. 

Mr. Lloyd. And you have five ? 

Doctor Evermann. We have three. 

I would like to say one word, if you will allow me, regarding the 
catching of fish in the pound net. I hardly think we should get the 
impression that the catching of fish in the pound net necessarily 
results in the destruction of that fish. As a matter of fact, the 
pound net is the only way in which fish can be caught and kept alive 
and turned loose if you find it desirable to turn them loose, or find 
that you are unable to utilize them. If the fish is caught in a gill 
net or seine, the fish is destroyed whether it can be canned or not. 



16 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

But if caught in the pound net it can be kept in the pound net 
and taken to the cannery for canning purposes, or the pound net 
can be opened and the fish allowed to escape. It is not true that the 
catching of fish in the pound net necessarily results in its death. 

Now, then, if a vast number of fish run into the pound net, and 
it is overcrowded, the result is that they are smothered; but that 
is an unusual rather than the normal condition. 

Mr. Houston. Why not adopt the pound net altogether and have 
them caught by that method entirely ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The pound net is what he calls the trap. 

Doctor Evermann. There are some places where the pound net 
could not be placed; that is, where the nature of the tides and the 
bottom and other physical conditions make it impossible to place a 
pound net. The fishermen in Alaska have, through long experience, 
adopted for each particular region the particular form of legal 
apparatus that is best adapted to that region. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is not what I stated to this committee a while 
ago true, that if you catch fish with nets and seines there is less 
liability of waste, because you can use them when you want them? 

Doctor Evermann. The fish caught in gill nets and seines are 
dead; they^ would die whether you canned them or not. The fish 
that are caught in the trap or pound net can be let loose. 

Mr. Wickersham. But please answer my question, Doctor; isn't 
it true that there is liable to be much less waste if the fish are caught 
in nets and seines, and you can can them right up to the limit ? 

Doctor Evermann. It seems to me that that matter would be 
regulated in this way: The outside foreman of the fish gang would be 
notified by the canner to-day that they can not utilize more than so 
many fish. Then if it be a gill-net or seine gang, they would leave 
the fish ; but if it be pound-net fishery, when the men went to the net 
and found more fish than the canner agreed to take, they would let 
the surplus out; so that it seems to me to be wise to regulate it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, Doctor, I am told by a gentleman who has 
had many years' experience as a fisherman in those Alaskan waters 
that almost invariably the fish caught in the trap die, even if you turn 
them out. 

Doctor Evermann. That has not been my observation. 

L.'r. Wickersham. That is the statement made to me. .And this is 
true in all of those fishing grounds in Alaska where they have the 
pound net and the tide goes out; is not that true? 

Doctor Evermann. Yes. 

Kr. Wickersham. I am informed by these fishermen that the tide 
goes down and leaves the fish in the trap and they die and are thrown 
out with forks. Have not your inspectors found that to be true in 
some cases ? 

Doctor Evermann. I have been to a number of pound nets in 
Alaska and I never saw them die. 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, not when you were there, of course. 

The Chairman. The tide would so far recede as to leave the net 
high and dry, and if the fish stay in the net of course they would be 
smothered and would die. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have photographs showing the traps along the 
edge of the tide flats. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 17 

Mr. Good. That might be regulated by the suggestion of Doctor 
Evermann, that the department be given authority to require that 
these pound nets be placed farther from the mouths of the streams. 

Mr. Wickersham. If this committee will give the Bureau of Fish- 
eries the authority, I will trust Doctor Evermann to enforce it, and 
to give us a good fishing administration in Alaska. I have every 
confidence in him. I do not always agree with him, because I think 
I know facts sometimes that he does not, but generally I am sure he 
is correct and always wants to do right. 

Mr. McKinney. And I suppose, conversely, that he sometimes 
knows more than you do about it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I think that is true — more frequently 
than the other way. 

The fish traps, I think, ought to be abolished. 

Now, there are haul seines, purse seines, gill nets, and a number of 
those seines and nets that are mentioned in the report, together with 
their value, and I have, attempted, at 1 cent per yard upon them, 
to get some little tax out of them. They are left in Alaska and are a 
part of the permanent property there. 

Now, I come to a matter that Mr. Furuseth and I do not agree 
upon. We have, according to this report for 1908, 13,337 men 
engaged in the fisheries in Alaska. Of that 13,337 men, more than 
4,000 of them are Chinese and Japanese, as shown on page 8 of the 
report. Mr. Marsh tells me that nearly the whole 100 per cent of 
those men are taken from San Francisco, Portland, Astoria, and 
Puget Sound to Alaska, in their boats in the summer time, and 
brought away in the fall. They catch this $12,000,000 worth of fish, 
and then hike out of Alaska with it, and we get nothing. The miners 
and prospectors in Alaska who are humping around over the hills 
with packs on their backs, looking for gold, have to pay $8 a year 
poll tax to get roads in that Territory; and they think the foreign 
fishermen ought to pay something. The tax recommended is $6 
apiece. They have sent petitions here protesting against that, and 
Mr. Furuseth is here representing them personally. It is believed in 
Alaska that they ought to pay something. It is thought there is no 
reason why they should not pay just the same as the other men in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Lloyd. Just one moment. Your purpose there is to make the 
laborer himself pay ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; each man $6, or two days' work. 

Mr. Good. What does the law require, Judge, with reference to the 
poll tax ? At what time of the year must the laborer be there ? 

Mr. Wickersham. In the summer. 

Mr. Good. At what time of the year must he be there to be subject 
to this tax 1 

Mr. Wickersham. Whenever called upon by the road supervisor. 

Mr. Good. But the laborers are only there two or three months in 
the year. He does not have to pay the tax, does he? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; if he is requested by the overseer. It is 
in the summer time they are required to work the roads — during the 
fishing season. 

Mr. Good. You don't remember the time fixed by law? 



18 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. No exact time is fixed — just when warned to 
work by the overseer. I believe these nonresident fishermen ought to 
pay something, for the fisherman who lives on the shore in Alaska, 
and who has his home there, has to pay a tax of $8, and these tran- 
sient fishermen who go there in the summer time and take the work 
from the residents of Alaska ought to pay $6; they ought to pay 
something. 

Mr. Lloyd. You would not tax the Japanese or the Chinese ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I would. 

Mr. Lloyd. People who are not citizens of the United States ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I would certainly tax them. That has nothing 
to do with it, whether they are citizens or not. They ought to help 
to build the roads there, if they are going to come into the Territory 
and take the work from the local fishermen. If they are taking the 
places of our laboring men, taking money out of the pockets of the 
people of Alaska, and preventing the resident fishermen from getting 
a livelihood in Alaska, then why should they not help some ? I 
have made provision in this bill to give the resident fishermen in 
Alaska who own boats the best of it by taxing him only one-half as 
much as those who are not residents in Alaska. 

Mr. Lloyd. I thought you taxed Mm $8 and these others $6. 

Mr. Wickersham. That was a mere oversight and must be cor- 
rected. 

Mr. Lloyd. Why make a distinction between the $8 for the man 
who stays there and $6 for the man who is there only half the time ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, the fishermen do not use the trails, and 
wages in that line are not so high as in mining. 

Mr. Lloyd. Why not make the $8 apply to him? 

Mr. Wickersham. We ought, and the bill may be so amended. 

Mr. Lloyd. I can not see the reason for distinguishing between the 
$8 man and the $6 man. 

Mr. Wickersham. I can not, either. 

I have here a resolution offered by the Alaska Fishermen's Union 
of San Francisco, protesting against this bill upon that ground, and 
I have received resolutions from some other Alaska fishermen's 
unions at Astoria and other places which are located outside of the 
Territory of Alaska. I do not know why they should be sent here. 
The fishermen resident in Alaska have made no objection. 

Mr. Lloyd. But it is the members of their union. 

Mr. Wickersham. That are to be taxed, yes — and that is the only 
reason why they wish to be heard in the matter. But the members 
of these organizations do not live in Alaska. They go up in the 
summer time, and they prevent resident fishermen from increasing 
and building homes in Alaska; prevent Alaska from having the 
homes, the schools, and the churches built by her resident fishermen 
in Alaska; and then they protest if they are asked to do a little 
something to help build up the Territory. 

The Chairman. I don't know anything about the fishing business 
in Alaska, but here are some things that occur to me. Suppose you 
represented a corporation that owned a large fishing outfit going up 
to a big country to fish. You have got to have a force of men; you 
may have to have 500 men. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; certainly. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATION'S IN ALASKA. 19 

The Chairman. You are going to a sparsely settled region- 



Mr. Wickersham. And it always will be a sparsely settled region 
if they do it that way. 

The Chairman. But let us consider things as they are. 
' Mr. Wickersham. All right. 

The Chairman. As I say, this is a new proposition to me, but this 
country is a territory located away from any city. Of course there 
are very few towns in Alaska 

Mr. Wickersham. But there are towns in Alaska that were built 
before Astoria was founded, in 1S12 

The Chairman. Well, assuming that; if you, Judge Wickersham, 
were going into the fishing business, you would get your fleet to go 
up into that country. Here are primeval hills, and there is no laborer 
in sight. You have got to take your laborers along with you, have 
you not ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; certainly. 

The Chairman. You have got to hire them somewhere; therefore 
you hire them where yoiT start from, and you put them on board of 
your fleet. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

The Chairman. The Alaska fisherman is not on hand, and he is 
not there to be employed by your company. You probably could 
not arrange it so that he could be. So that you have got to take up 
somebody in order to start your canning business promptly upon 
reaching Alaska. Therefore the query is whether these people, 
when they are imported there, are crowding out the Alaskan fishermen 
or not. As a matter of fact, are they, in practice? 

Mr. Wickersham. No — and yes; because they continually import 
foreign labor from year to year. And there is absolutely no encour- 
agement given either by the canners or the United States to any 
resident fisherman in Alaska over the Italians, the Japs, and the 
Chinamen whom they take up there under contract in their vessels; 
absolutely none ; and we will never have resident fishermen in Alaska 
so long as that importation system continues. 

The Chairman. How are you going to control that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I would control it in some respect by fixing the 
rate of taxation upon the cannerymen so that it will equalize the 
burden; and then I would give the resident fishermen in Alaska the 
advantage by only taxing them one-half as much. I am going to try 
to have the laws arranged in such a way as to help the fishermen in 
Alaska; to help them to build their homes there and become resident 
fishermen in Alaska. 

Now, of course, that is a general plan 

The Chairman. One moment. Assuming that j^ou are a canner, 
I don't know where you would get the men. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I am not a canner nor his attorney. I 
am the representative of those who wish to encourage the upbuild- 
ing of the resident fislu "men in Alaska. 

The Chairman. But assuming that only for the purpose of this 
illustration, of course. As the fishing season is opening, you want 
to get up there and open up your cannery. I don't know where you 
are going to get the force of men to do it with. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not intend to ask this committee to do 
anything to embarrass the canneries in Alaska, but the law ought to 



20 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

be' so framed as to build up Alaska and its resident fishermen, and 
not those in distant States. Why, Mr. Chairman, we have at Ketchi- 
kan to-day something that did not exist a few years ago. We have 
a fishing system there which buys fish every day in the year, from 
resident fishermen and Indians who live in the community, for cold- 
storage purposes. They put up halibut and other food fishes and 
ship them east. That plant is in active operation every clay, and it 
pays the money every day to these resident fishermen, who go out 
and catch the halibut and bring them to their wharf. That is what 
we want in Alaska. We want that sort of fishermen. We want the 
fishing business so conducted in Alaska that it will support the fish- 
ermen every day in the year and not crowd out the resident fisher- 
men. That is the beginning of what we want. As an illustration of 
the growth and the benefit of resident fishermen, I exhibit to you a 
copy of the Ketchikan Miner, and read to you an article therein, 
descriptive of the benefit locally of the New England Fishing Com- 
pany's plant there: 

THIS WEEK THERE WAS PAID $8,177.29 FOE FISH. 

Last week there was paid out for fish in the Ketchikan market the sum of §>S,043.29. 
This week the amount has increased by $133.98, the books of the M. and M. Bank 
showing that $8,177.27 had been used up to this morning in payment for fish that had 
been brought in here. 

That means that $1,362.88 is paid out each day for fish. That means that there is 
an assured revenue of more than a thousand dollars a day pouring into the pockets of our 
fishermen which will keep up for weeks to come. It is increasing each year, and the 
future prosperity of this city can be calculated from that source alone, to say nothing- 
of the immensity of our mineral resources. 

The merchants are selling more goods than ever before. One of them told us that 
his sales this month just doubled those for the same period a year ago. 

The bank informs us that its deposits are doubling and its business, which is a 
barometer of the city, is leaping up daily. 

So, there you are. The men who are sticking to Ketchikan are the sure winners. 

The New England Fish Company has been doing a nice business this week, having 
frozen over 200,000 pounds of halibut. On Tuesday the Manhattan came in loaded 
with 150,000 pounds of fish and was sent to Vancouver by Superintendent Stedman. 
The same day the Kingfisher arrived with 175,000 pounds, which was handled by the 
plant here, and the boat returned, to the fishing grounds for another catch. 

The Chairman. I suppose there is a limit as to the length of time 
that fish can remain in cold storage and be fit for food. 

Mr. Wickersham. I should hope so, although I saw the other day 
that ten years was said to be the limit. 

The Chairman. So that you would want to get your cold-storage 
plant near the terminus of a railroad ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They ship these fish from Ketchikan to Boston. 

The Chairman. That is exactly what I was getting at, that the 
Ketchikan cold-storage plant is located practically with reference to 
this transcontinental shipping. 

Mr. Wickersham. Of course you could not do that with canned 
salmon. That must all be done, as Mr. Marsh and Doctor Evermann 
have told you, within thirty to ninety days, during the run of the fish. 
That requires a larger number of men to garner the crop, just as is 
required in cutting wheat in a farming community where wheat is the 
crop. 

Now, I have another clipping from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer 
that I would like to call to the attention of the committee. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 21 

Mr. Lloyd. Before you do that. Your idea is to have resident 
fishermen. How can you have resident salmon fishermen if they are 
only employed three months in the year ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, you can not during the first year. 

Mr. Lloyd. What could they do during the other nine months ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Just what they do down in Washington, Ore- 
gon, and California. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do they do there ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Fish for halibut and other food fishes which are 
•found in Alaskan waters. We have great cod banks and halibut 
banks and other kinds of food fish. 

Mr. Lloyd. Your theory is this: If you could get fishermen there 
you could fish for different fishes at different times in the year, and 
that they would secure constant employment? 

Mr. Wickersham. Undoubtedly. As it is, we can not get a body 
of resident home-building fishermen, because they run up a summer 
fleet loaded with Oregon and California fishermen and after thirty to 
.ninety days take them out again. 

The Chairman. And the solution of that is that by and by Alaska 
will become more and more settled and you will have a population to 
draw upon? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is my purpose in encouraging Alaska 
.fishermen. But unless this committee takes some action to conserve 
and protect the fisheries we will not have any salmon up there in a 
•few years for even our resident fishermen to handle. I would like to 
have the .resident fishing population and the salmon both there at 
the same time, if it is possible. 

The Chairman. I see the .force of that. You have got to get the 
population there by some such method. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. If you will put Doctor Evermann in con- 
trol of the fisheries in Alaska, he will manage both of these matters in 
■time. Give .him power and authority to protect the fish and to pro- 
tect and encourage resident fishermen ancl the canners will gain by it, 
too. Now I want to read another article from the Seattle Post- 
Intelligencer. It is an interview with a gentleman who has spent 
many years in Alaska [reads] : 

CANNERS ARE NOT WATCHED, HE SAYS — EEDERAL INSPECTION IN ALASKA INADE- 
QUATE, DECLARES H. F. SWIFT — STALE SALMON PACKED — COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN 
SUPERINTENDENT FOURTEEN YEARS IN OLDEST PLANT IN NORTH. 

That the salmon canneries of Alaska are paying the Government an annual inspec- 
tion fee which, in many instances, amounts to as much as $1,600, for which the Govern- 
ment is giving little or no real service in return, was the statement made yesterday by 
H. F. Swift, superintendent of the Klawack cannery, on the west coast of Prince of 
Wales Island, which is owned by the North Coast Trading and Packing Company, of 
San Francisco. He is stopping at the Hotel Northern, and will embark on an Alaska 
steamer shortly for the north to begin spring preparations. 

"While the Department of Commerce and Labor maintains two inspectors in Alaska 
waters for the express purpose of guarding against the packing and shipment of tainted 
salmon, it has never equipped them for the big task they are expected to accomplish," 
he said. 

ROUTE OF THOUSAND MILES. 

"For instance, one officer, who is assigned the duty of inspecting all the canneries 
in southeastern Alaska, must cover more than a thousand miles on his route. The 
inducement to violate the law providing that no fish shall be held forty-eight hours 
after its death is very great, and great piles of the stock may accumulate on the dock 

48684—10 10 



22 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

faster than the factory can handle it, and may stand there several days, yet there is 
little or no danger of detection by the inspector. 

"Neither of the inspectors has a boat of his own, and they must move from place to 
place on the craft furnished by the canneries or fishermen. Thus the approach may 
be anticipated far enough ahead to enable the cannery to clean up thoroughly before 
the inspector's arrival. 

PEE IS COLLECTED. 

"The three canneries on Prince of Wales island handle each about 40,000 cases 
annually, and we are forced to pay 4 cents a case to the Government, presumably for 
inspection. The inspector for that section has not visited my plant in the last three 
years. In all, there are about forty canneries in Alaskan waters which these two 
officials are expected to visit, and it is doubtful if they ever really witness the packing 
of more than 1,000 or 1,500 cases at any one plant during the season. 

"It is not entirely the fault of the officers themselves. The Government has fur- 
nished practically no facilities for them, and of course they can figure, in the present 
circumstances, only on visiting the places where violations of the law are most 
notorious. The thing really needed is an inspector at each plant throughout the 
season." 

GOOD YEAR EXPECTED. 

Mr. Swift says this is a question that should be of considerable importance just now, 
as the packers of Alaska will furnish probably three-fourths of the entire output on 
the Pacific coast this year. Alaskan canneries expect to handle their usual quota of 
something more than 2,000,000 cases this year. He says he has seen fish left standing 
on the docks so long, in some cases, that they could not be handled with the fork, and 
scoop shovels were required for their removal. He asserts his plant is the oldest in 
the North. It was established in 1879. He has been its superintendent fourteen 
years. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is a published statement made by Mr. 
Swift, of the North Coast Trading and Packing Company, of San 
Francisco. 

The Chairman. I will remind the gentlemen that it is now 5 min- 
utes of 12. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have here a statement of license taxes paid 
by canneries and salteries in the third division, Territory of Alaska, 
as appears from the records and files of the clerk's office at Valdez. 
It shows a deficit of over $400,000, and I would like to have 
it put in the record so that Mr. Browne can tell us where that 
$426,197.14 has been paid, if at all. I also attach hereto a clipping 
from the Valdez Prospector, a newspaper, which shows that since 
these hearings have commenced and the cannery men have found it 
necessary "to come into court" they have also begun to pay long- 
past-due accounts to the United States. I call special attention to 
the fact that in the last month the North Alaska Salmon Company, 
operating at several places on Bristol Bay, paid $31,598.07 for the 
years 1905-1909. The Red Salmon Packing Company paid $3,339.40 
for the years 1905-1907, and 1909. The Naknek Company paid 
$6,541.62 for the years 1906-1909. These amount to $41,478.09, and 
are paid by some of those now protesting against the proposed bill. 
If these companies would pay what is justly due to the Govern- 
ment and obey the law, they would deserve more attention when they 
complain. 

The Chairman. Without objection, that will be incorporated as a 
part of Mr. Wickersham's remarks. 

(Following is the statement referred to :) 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 23 

CANNERS DIG UP $41,478 TAXES — THREE COMPANIES PAY DUES AT 4 CENTS A CASE 
FOR FOUR YEARS BACK — CLERK RECEIVES MONEY — BIG CORPORATIONS PRODUCING 
SOME CASH ALONG WITH HATCHERY AFFIDAVITS. 

More than $40,000 came to the clerk of the district court in the last mail for taxes 
from salmon canners in Alaska. From some canneries these taxes are for several 
years. They had not paid because nobody had pounded them on the back. Clerk 
Lakin has been writing them suggestions since last summer and the canneries finally 
came through with the "mazuma." 

The North Alaska Salmon Company, operating at several places on Bristol Bay, 
paid $31,598.07 for the years 1905-1909. The Red Salmon Canning Company paid 
$3,339.40 for the years 1905-1907, 1909. The company's bark was lost on the way 
north in 1908 and it did not operate that year. The Naknek Packing Company 
paid $6,541.62 for 1906-1909. The total from the three companies is $41,478.09. 

The Northwestern Fisheries Company, the Alaska Packers' Association, the Port- 
land Packing Company, and the Columbia River Packing Company have paid each 
year. In 1907, the first year after the bill was passed permitting them to pay by 
affidavits of the liberation of fry from hatcheries, they paid almost wholly in affida- 
vits, the Alaska Packers giving up 32 cents. A tremendous roar went up and the 
packers have paid increasing sums of money since. 



Statement of license taxes paid by canneries and salteries in the third division, Territory 
of Alaska, as appears from the records and files of the clerk's office at Valdez. 

Alaska Salmon Company (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1901 $712. 00 

1902 980. 00 

1903 1, 160. 00 

1904 (a) 

1905 2, 912. 40 

1906 («) 

1907 (a) 

1908 (a) 

1909 1, 646. 72 

Alaska Fish and Packing Company (head office, Tacoma, Wash.): 
Season of — 

1901 211. 50 

1902 242. 56 

1903 67. 35 

1904 25. 10 

1906 (a) 

1907 (o) 

1908 •. (a) 

1909 (a) 

Alaska Packers Association (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1900 12, 282. 88 

1901 39, 753. 12 

1902 41, 740. 40 

1903 42, 726. 28 

1904 36, 926. 96 

1905 34, 507. 44 

1906 3, 167. 30 

1907 (hatchery certificate, $32,272) 379. 42 

1908 (hatchery certificate, $29,668.80) 8, 843. 58 

1909 (hatchery certificate, $20,956) 15, 806. 50 

a No payment of record. 



24 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA., 

Alaska Fishermen's Packing Company (head office, Astoria, Oreg.): 
Season of — 

1902 $1,483.60 

1903 1, 725. 24 

1904 .• ... 1,475.32 

1905 2, 049, 85' 

1906 2, 326. 08 

1907 («) 

1908 (a) 

1909 (o) 

Alaska- Portland Packers' Association (head office, Portland, Oreg.): 
Season of — 

1901 826. 68- 

1902 .............. 1,385:52 

1903... , .... 1,510.08 

1904 2,987.52 

1905....... 2,234.80 

1906. 2, 348. 00 

1907 1,189.5$ 

1908 2, 282. 84 

1909 2, 272. 28 

Bristol Packing Company (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1900 240. 00 

1901 360.00' 

1902 720. 00 

1903 640. 00 

1904 (a) 

1905 («) 

1906 (a) 

1907 (a) 

1908 (a) 

1909 (a) 

Columbia River Packers' Association (head office, Astoria, Oreg.): 
Season of — 

1903 1, 183. 60 

1904 1,198.72 

1905 1, 511. 20 

1906 1, 881. 60 

1907 1,194.44 

1908 2, 036. 44 

1909 1,959.92 

Lagoon Salmon Company (head office, ) : a 

Note. — The above firm made proof of pack to the Bureau of Fisheries for the season 
of 1909 of 2,850 barrels. 

Nelson, Olson Company (head office, ):° 

Note. — The above firm made proof of pack to the Bureau of Fisheries for the season 
of 1909 of 4,840 barrels. 

Peter M. Nelson (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1902 $235. 00 

1903 274.30 

1904 (a) 

1905 (a) 

1906 («) 

1 907 (a) 

1908 (a) 

1909 (a) 

Note. — The above firm made proof of pack to the Bureau of Fisheries for the season 
of 1909 of 5,345 barrels. 

a No payment of record. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 25 

North Alaska Packing Company (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1901 $1,868.00 

1902 2,952.30 

1903 4, 847. 80 

1904 3, 251. 60 

1905 (<*) 

1906 (a) 

1907 .- (a) 

1908 (a) 

1909 (a) 

North Alaska Salmon Company (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1901 1, 868. 00 

1902 2, 952. 30 

1903 4, 847. 80 

1904 3, 251. 60 

1905 6, 112. 50 

1906 5, 915. 20 

1907 5, 505. 65 

1908 6, 509. 70 

1909 r 7, 555. 02 

Northwestern Packing Company (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1901 200. 00 

1902 380. 00 

1903 340; 00 

1904 270. 00 

1905 300. 00 

1906 180. 00 

1907 401. 85 

1908 (a) 

1909 (a) 

Naknek Packing Company (head office, San Francisco, Cal.): 
Season of — 

1900 1, 200. 00 

1901 1 , 440. 00 

1902 1, 520. 00 

1903 1, 640. 00 

1904 1, 016. 00 

1905 1, 083. 00 

1906 1, 349. 00 

1907 1, 397. 30 

1908 1, 802. 66 

1909 1, 972. 66 

Northwestern Fisheries Company (head office, Seattle, Wash.), successors to Pacific 
Packing and Navigation Company: 
Season of — 

1905 $6, 163. 16 

1906 6, 757. 46 

1907 8,105.38 

1908 8,616.44 

1909 7, 702. 08 

Osmund and Andersen (head office, , ):° 

Note. — The above firm made proof of pack to the Bureau of Fisheries for the season 
of 1909 of 823 barrels. 

Pacific Packing and Navigating Company (head office, Tacoma, Wash.), Northwestern 
Fisheries Company, successors: 
Season of — 

1901 $7, 787. 28 

]902 11,298.56 

1903 7, 629. 88 

1904 8, 022. 66 

ffl No payment of record. 



26 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

L. A. Pedersen (head office, San Francisco, Oal.): 
Season of — 

1900 (a) 

1901 (a) 

1902 (a) 

1903 (a) 

1904 (a) 

1905 (a) 

1906 $110.00 

1907 (a) 

1908 (a) 

1909 (a) 

Note. — The above firm made proof of pack to the Bureau of Fisheries for the season 
of 1909 of 33,000 cases and 1,530 barrels. 

Red Salmon Packing Company (head office, San Francisco, Oal.): 
Season of — 

1901 $339. 92 

1902 1, 155. 68 

1903 1, 154. 26 

1904 231. 12 

1905 420. 64 

1906 600. 00 

1907 957. 42 

1908 (did not operate) 

1909 1, 341. 34 

San Juan Fishing and Packing Company (head office, Seattle, Wash.): 
Season of — 

1908 352. 40 

1909 (no payment of record) 

Union Packing Company (head office, Tacoma, Wash.): 

Season of — 

1904 448. 00 

1905 602. 18 

1906 (<*) 

1907 (a) 

1908 (a) 

1909 .' (<*) 

Alaska Salmon Company 7, 411. 12 

Alaska Fish and Packing Company 546. 51 

Alaska Packers' Association 236, 333. 88 

Alaska Fishermen's Packing Company 9, 060. 09 

Alaska-Portland Packers' Association 17, 037. 28 

Bristol Packing Company 1, 960. 00 

Columbia River Packers' Association 10, 965. 92 

Peter M. Nelson .' 509. 30 

North Alaska Packing Company 12, 919. 70 

North Alaska Salmon Company 44, 517. 77 

Northwestern Packing Company 2, 071. 85 

Naknek Packing Company 14, 440. 62 

Northwestern Fisheries Company 37, 344. 52 

Pacific Packing and Navigation Company 34, 738. 38 

L. A. Pedersen 110. 00 

Red Salmon Packing Company 6, 200. 38 

San Juan Fish and Packing Company 352. 40 

Union Packing Company 11, 000. 18 

Total 437, 569. 90 



a No payment of record. 



FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 27 

1900 $1, 534, 745 

1901 2, 034, 895 

1902 2, 554, 423 

1903 2, 251, 085 

1904 1, 953, 746 

1905 1, 885, 316 

1906 2, 227, 064 

1907 2, 170, 272 

1908 2, 619, 019 

1909 2, 363, 611 

21, 594, 176 

Taxes due on pack $863, 767. 04 

Taxes paid 437, 569. 90 

Taxes due from some one 426, 197. 14 

Note. — This amount is to be lessened by the amounts paid to the clerk of the court 
at Juneau or elsewhere. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have a lot of other material that I would like 
to get in the record, butr 

Mr. Houston. Judge Wickersham, wouldn't it be necessary to 
have an inspector at each cannery just like you have a storekeeper 
gauger at each distillery ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It will be necessary. If you were making 
cigars up there with only two men at work, you would have a man 
inspecting them all the time. 

Mr. Houston. And you would put those inspectors under the 
Fisheries Bureau ? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is the way it ought to be. I have every 
confidence in the Fisheries Bureau, and if we can get that bureau put 
in charge of things in Alaska, we will have no further trouble. 

Mr. Chairman, I see that Mr. Hayes is here, and I understand he 
has a telegram in respect to some objection to this bill. Do you 
object to putting that telegram in the record, Mr. Hayes ? 

Mr. Hayes, of California. No, I do not; but I haven't it with me 
at this time. 

Mr. Wickersham. What cannery is the telegram from? 

Mr. Hayes. I think it is from the North Alaska Salmon Cannery. 

(Adjourned at 12 o'clock, noon.) 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



STATEMENT OF 
ALASKA PACKERS' ASSOCIATION 

UPON THE BILL 

H. R. 22579 

PROPOSING AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LAW 
RELATING TO FISHERIES IN ALASKA 



SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 
48684—10 11 J 



STATEMENT OF ALASKA. PACKERS' ASSOCIATION UPON THE BILL (H.R. 
22579) PROPOSING AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LAW RELATING TO 
FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 



So far as relates to the salmon-fishing industry of Alaska the pend- 
ing bill proposes : 

(1) Large increase in the present federal tax on canned salmon. 

(2) The taxation of all vessels used in the industry there at the rate 
of $1 per gross ton capacity, though registered, owned, and now taxed 
elsewhere, as well as the* taxation of all gear used in such fishing. 

(3) The repeal of the present tax allowance upon the output of 
salmon fry from hatcheries built, maintained, and operated by pri- 
vate owners engaged in salmon fishing, and under the original require- 
ment of the United States Treasury Department. 

In all these respects, the pending bill makes radical changes and 
additions to the recent act approved June 26, 1906, entitled "An act 
for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska." (34Stats., 
Pt. I, p. 478.) That act was passed after full hearing before this 
committee and with the express approval of the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor. The whole subject was then exhaustively con- 
sidered, the representatives of the Bureau of Fisheries and all those 
engaged in the practical operation of the salmon-fishing industry in 
Alaska being then fully heard. The report of this committee on such 
bill, and which was enacted into law precisely as reported from the 
committee (the committee's statement, Report No. 2657, 59th Cong., 
1st sess.), is appended hereto for full information and ready reference. 

The tax on canned salmon then provided by law (act of March 3, 
1899, 30 Stats., p. 1336) was 4 cents per case (of 48 cans of 1 pound 
each). That rate was left unchanged by the act of June 26, 1906, 
the committee's report on the bill stating: 

Note. — It is believed that this is the only instance where the Federal Government 
imposes taxes on any fisheries within its jurisdiction. 

It is asserted by the packers, and credited by the committee as a fact, that under 
present existing conditions as to cost of manufacture and market prices of the finished 
commodity this tax on canned salmon amounts to from 10 mills to 16 mills on the 
dollar of the wholesale prices of the finished product at Pacific coast railroad termi- 
nals — i. e., Puget Sound, Astoria, Portland, San Francisco, etc. — after being trans- 
ported from Alaska, and from 4 to 10 per cent of the value of the raw product at the 
canneries in Alaska, the variations in the rate depending upon the varieties of fish. 

The pending bill increases this tax on canned salmon to 5 cents 
per case, or an increase of 25 per cent. Upon this method of taxa- 
tion, the Bureau of Fisheries, through its Alaska salmon fishing 
agent, Mr. William C. Marsh, submitted the recommendation (Hear- 
ing May, 2, p. 7, and May 3, p. 5) of a tax on canned salmon propor- 
tioned to the value of each of the five different commercial grades or 
classes, as follows : 

3 



4 FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 

King, 5 cents per case; red, 5 cents per case; coho, 5 cents per 
case; humpback, 3 cents per case; dog, 3 cents per case. 

The plain and logical reason for thus putting the tax on the fishing 
industry of Alaska solely on the product is thus stated by Mr. 
Marsh (Hearing, May 2, 1910, p. 5) : 

Mr. Marsh. In the matter of taxes, I would say it would seem unnecessary and 
without any especial advantage to distribute the tax it is desired to raise over all the 
products and all the vessels, boats, gear, and even the fishermen themselves. The 
bill under consideration takes almost the whole tax out of the packing companies, 
and it would be simpler to put it all on the canned salmon — which is about 84 per 
ent of the whole product of the Alaska fisheries last year — and on certain of the minor 
products. This would greatly simplify the tax and make its collection as easy as 
possible. There is, in fact, some injustice in the taxes on vessels and gear, for in a 
bad year — and the packing business is one of vicissitudes which alone can bankrupt 
a packer in a season — the tax has to be paid on material which has produced but little. 
The tax on the product adjusts itself properly to the degree of success or failure. 

This association packs only the higher grades, and mainly red 
salmon — hence the increased tax proposed would apply upon the 
whole of its product, but it believes any increase of tax should be 
put upon the product. It submits, as additional reasons therefor: 

(1) The vessels owned and chartered by the association are all 
taxed elsewhere. Thus the tonnage of both steam and sail vessels 
owned by the association aggregates 35,866 tons, and in addition two 
chartered sailing vessels of 3,625 tonnage. Most of this tonnage is 
located at San Francisco, where the association pays both state and 
county taxes thereon, aggregating for the year 1909, $6,492:81. In 
other words, the vessels are all taxed in their home port and to the 
owner there resident, this association being a California corporation. 
To tax such tonnage again in Alaska is hence plainly double taxation. 

Practically all of this tonnage sails from these Pacific home ports 
to Alaska waters, and at the end of the fishing season returns to the 
home port for repairs and winter quarters. To tax either vessels or 
gear is hence to tax the property engaged in producing the canned 
fish product, on which, in turn, a direct tax is now imposed. 

II. Hatcheries. 

The association maintains two hatcheries — one located at Karluk, 
on Kodiak Island, and the other (the Fortmann hatchery) on Naha 
stream, in southeastern Alaska. To date they have cost for con- 
struction, maintenance, and operation over $410,000. They were 
originally constructed in response to the requirement of the Secretary 
of the Treasury (when that department had jurisdiction of the Alas- 
kan fisheries). This association was then the only concern engaged 
in salmon canning in Alaska to respond to this requirement of the 
department. The obligation was not statutory, and hence was 
ignored by all other canning companies. The result was that this 
association was put at plain disadvantage and required to carry an 
undue burden. In his annual report for 1905 the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor recommended as follows : 

Under the act of March 3, 1899, a tax of 4 cents per case is levied and collected on 
canned salmon and a tax of 10 cents per barrel on salted salmon. The total revenue 
(not including that of the current year) has been $429,781.52, while the expense to 
the Government during the same period for enforcement of the law for the protection 
of these fisheries has not exceeded $35,000. Whatever the Government may do in 
the line of artificial propagation, it is desirable that persons engaged in the business 



FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 5 

of salmon packing in Alaska be encouraged to build and maintain hatcheries. To 
accomplish this, it is probable that a rebate from this tax, based upon a proper ratio 
of the annual pack to the fry liberated by persons maintaining hatcheries, would 
afford the most satisfactory method of dealing with the question. Such private 
hatcheries should be under the supervision of this department, which would have 
power to make all necessary rules for their conduct. 

Following this recommendation, and after full consideration, this 
committee incorporated in the act of June 26, 1906, the following 
provision (sec. 2): 

That the catch and pack of salmon made in Alaska by the owners of private salmon 
hatcheries operated in Alaska shall be exempt from all license fees and taxation of 
every nature, at the rate of 10 cases of canned salmon to every 1,000 red or king salmon 
fry liberated upon the following conditions. 

The conditions required, in substance, the approval by the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor of the sufficiency of each hatchery and 
the sworn return to the clerk of the court of the district wherein the 
hatchery was located of the number of fry liberated. 

Criticism is made that such departmental supervision is not suffi- 
cient and the proof of tEe fry liberated not sufficiently supervised by 
a departmental representative. No fraud is or can be charged, the 
suggestion being only the possibility thereof. It is only necessary to 
say that this association welcomes the most rigid official scrutiny and 
the constant attendance of a representative of the department at each 
of its hatcheries during the season when the fry is liberated. 

The actual figures show that from these two hatcheries there has 
been liberated over 600,000,000 fry, the actual cost of such produc- 
tion to the association being 75 cents per thousand fry, whereas the 
tax allowance is but 40 cents per thousand fry. 

In the hearings before the committee on the pending bill the repre- 
sentatives of the Bureau of Fisheries very strongly recommended the 
retention, for the present, of private hatcheries and the allowance for 
the output as under the present law. Their views are officially 
approved by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor 
in his communication upon this bill to this committee and found 
printed in the record of the hearing of April 25, page 2. The Secre- 
tary therein says: 

The repeal of the tax-emption system contained in section 2 of the 1906 law is not 
considered advisable at this time. This system encourages the packers to undertake 
salmon culture. Its repeal would probably mean more or less curtailment of the 
operations of these private hatcheries. With respect to the relation of the amount 
of the exemption, which is the equivalent of 40 cents per thousand fry under the 
existing law, to the cost of producing the fry, this cost varies from year to year and at 
different places. It ranges in the government's operations from 26 to 41 cents, and is 
usually from 30 to 40 cents. This includes none of the cost of the original plant for 
hatching, but only annual maintenance. Under an increased tax on canned salmon 
the fry equivalent might be increased somewhat. 

In effect this exemption feature merely, and to a limited extent, 
rewards the industry and enterprise of the private citizen who hatches 
salmon and replenishes the waters of Alaska, thus performing the 
ordinary functions of the Government by allowing a rebate on his 
tax for fry released and cost of actual production of the young fish. 

The value of artificial propagation of salmon needs no extended dis- 
cussion here. Doctor Evermann, of the Bureau of Fisheries, has 
made this perfectly plain in his statements at the hearings before the 
committee (hearing April 25, pp. 2, 10, and May 3, pp. 21-27). 
Therein Doctor Evermann also cites the opinion of the experts of the 



6 FISHEEIES IN ALASKA. 

International Fisheries Convention and of the Alaska Salmon Com- 
mission, which are all entirely harmonious in this regard. The best 
scientific authority thus holds that, under the natural spawning con- 
ditions of the salmon, 95 per cent of the eggs are lost, while under the 
artificial method 95 per cent of the eggs are saved. Therein lies the 
great value of the hatchery as an aid in maintaining the fish supply. 
This ratio has been practically demonstrated by the experience of the 
Alaska Packers Association, which has been by far the most extensive 
private fish culturist in the United States. Everywhere throughout 
the United States the Government maintains expensive fish hatcheries 
for the reproduction of fish as a food product. Only in very recent 
years has that effort been initiated by the Government in respect of 
salmon hatcheries in Alaska. 

The views of this association on the subject are stated in the follow- 
ing lettergram to the undersigned, dated San Francisco, April 29, 1910 : 

[Telegram.] 

San Francisco, Cal., April 29, 1910 — 2.05 a. m. 
Messrs Britton and Gray, 

1419 F Street NW., Washington, D. C. 
Regarding the taking over of our salmon hatcheries by the Government. We fully 
appreciate the value of government ownership of the hatcheries and more so the 
efficiency and thoroughness of the United States Fish Commission. A transfer to 
the Government would relieve us of considerable arduous work and responsibility 
and would place us in possession of funds from investments now not only remunerative 
but an actual heavy annual expense . At the same time, having developed this feature 
of our industry, we would prefer to continue under existing conditions, as it enables 
us to give closer study to the salmon and their habits. We have found the United 
States Fish Commission always ready and eager to do intelligent and scientific work 
in this direction, as is shown by the salmon investigations carried on at Wood River 
for the past three years and this season's proposed additional investigation of the 
Wood and Nushagak rivers. The expenses of the Wood River work are borne by the 
Alaska, Portland, and Packers Association and the Alaska Packers Association; those 
of the Nushagak by the Alaska Packers Association alone. The personnel is fur- 
nished by the United States Fish Commission. Should the Government have any 
funds available for salmon hatcheries in Alaska it would be preferable and of more 
benefit for the general preservation and augmentation of the salmon to construct 
additional hatcheries rather than purchase those operated by private parties. 

Alaska Packers Association. 

III. 

Suggestions have been submitted at the hearing on this bill seeking 
to show assumed great annual profit derived from the salmon-fishing 
industry in Alaska, and an intimation dropped that, in part, it was 
controlled or owned abroad. Responsive to these and other sug- 
gestions of like import, we submit herewith the statements of the 
Alaska Packers' Association, contained in full lettergrams, as follows : 

[Telegrams.] 

San Francisco, Cal., May 2, 1910. 
Messrs. Britton & Gray, 

1419 F street NW., Washington, D. C: 
Association not owned or controlled abroad. Association has 57,508 shares issued, 
divided among 564 stockholders. Over 93 per cent of Alaska Packers' Association 
shares are owned by residents of California. Most of the stock owned otherwise is 
property of former residents of this State. Less than 2 per cent is owned abroad. The 
prices of Alaska Packers' Association salmon are named annually, generally in August, 
after most of the season's packing results have been reported. The president of the 



FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 7 

company has sole authority to name prices and this is done after thoroughly examining 
into condition of markets, quantity of old stocks on hand, etc., and after conference 
with our largest purchasers, but never with any other salmon canners or representatives 
or brokers of other concerns. The association does not fix prices for any goods not 
packed by the company itself, nor does it purchase or deal in salmon not packed by 
itself, nor has it ever attempted to influence prices of other salmon canners. In all 
lines of staple articles the prices named by the largest producer of a certain grade of 
goods are necessarily of influence on the prices of the same class of goods manufactured 
by others, but prices of salmon packed by the different Alaska concerns have often 
varied considerably and have never been alike in the same season for all grades packed 
by the different cannery companies. 

Alaska Packers' Association. 

San Francisco, Cal., May 6, 1910. 
Britton & Gray, 

1419 F street NW., Washington, D. C: 

As per our report our present capitalization is, fully paid up capital stock, $5,750,800 ; 
bonds outstanding, $1,322,000; total capitalization, $7,072,800. In addition, we have 
to borrow large sums annually to pay for our outfit. The total amount invested in 
our plants and fleet is $5,539,186; of this $159,550 is in California repair shops and 
office, $805,750 in our canneries and vessels employed on Puget Sound, and $4,573,886 
in our Alaska fleet and canneries. Since February, 1893, the time of its organization, 
the association has paid in dividends $5,469,381, or less than its capitalization. Of 
this amount over $1,500,000 has been earned by our Puget Sound canneries. Divi- 
dends have not been regular; none were paid from September, 1905, to February, 
1910. The present price of our paid up $100 shares is $90 per share. The highest 
price paid for the stock in the past five years has been $92.50; the lowest, $36. From 
an investment standpoint buying shares in a company is neither attractive nor ade- 
quately remunerative if such company is not able to return its paid up capital to its 
stockholders in seventeen years and during that time is forced to take such risks as we 
have to take. The business is extremely hazardous. Valuable vessels with costly 
cargoes haA r e to sail during the most inclement part of the year to a dangerous, largely 
uncharted, and unsurveyed coast. The aids to navigation are very deficient in Alaskan 
waters. 

Wrecks of cannery vessels have been numerous. All purchases of vessels, equip- 
ments, machinery, and all new constructions have always been added to the book 
assets of the company. A reasonable amount has been charged for deterioration. 
Up to January, 1910, a total of $2,554,197 has been charged off. Of the $779,728 profits 
in our 1909 operations $286,773 were earned on Puget Sound and $492,955 in Alaska. 
The most remunerative year in our business was 1909. In 1905 we lost $1,074,402, 
although showing earnings of $376,997 on Puget Sound, or our Alaska operations show 
a loss of over $1,400,000. In other seasons profits have been extremely small. All 
our vessels are documented in Washington or California United States custom-houses. 
We pay taxes in the State of Washington on such vessels as are documented there. 
On all other vessels, even on such as are stationed in Alaska permanently, we pay 
city of San Francisco and California State taxes. During several seasons our vessels 
have been unable to reach their destinations in proper time, being impeded by ice, 
and heavy losses have been the consequence of these delays. Many Alaska can- 
neries have been closed for years because the hazard is greater than any probable 
profit. The runs of salmon are extremely short. In Bristol Bay, our principal Alaska 
point of operation, the fishing lasts less than four weeks. In many seasons, although 
salmon are plentiful, fishermen are prevented from fishing through inclemency of 
the weather. The runs of salmon during different seasons vary as much as crops 
from farms and can never be prognosticated with the slightest degree of certainty. 
Full outfits and complements of men have to be sent to Alaska salmon canneries every 
season, all current heavy expenses have to be borne, and employees have to be paid 
and fed for the full season if the catch is large or small. In the canneries of Puget 
Sound, the Columbia River, and the coast canneries of Washington, Oregon, and 
California, most of the men are hired by the day, and if a shortage of salmon occurs 
the employees are discharged at once and a large loss thereby obviated. The Alaska 
salmon canners can not take advantage of such a method and in consequence of the 
certainty of pay, positions in the Alaska salmon canneries are more sought after by 
the men than in those located elsewhere. 

The investments in Alaska salmon canneries as a whole have not been profitable; 
many companies have never paid a dividend. At the time of its organization, the 
Alaska Packers' Association purchased even the best canneries of Alaska at far less than 
cost. As a whole, during the thirty years of existence of Alaska salmon canneries, far 



8 FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 

more money has been invested than has been taken out. The selling price of salmon 
is largely regulated by the selling price of other food commodities. That means that 
even in a season of salmon shortage, caused by ice, inclement weather, etc., prices do 
not rise in proportion to increased cost. The petition mentioned, if signed by 800 
Alaska fishermen for the abolishing of traps, is no doubt signed solely by gill net or seine 
men who wish to have traps abolished in waters suitable for gill netting or seining. No 
fisherman employed in places where traps are the only practical method of catching 
salmon would sign such a petition nor would any gill net man or seine man ask to have 
traps abolished in waters where gill netting or seining is impracticable. We are in close 
touch and very friendly with all of our employees, including the union fishermen. 
We have never had a strike or lockout. All rates of wages and other conditions of 
employment have always been settled in the most amicable manner. Local repre- 
sentatives of the Alaska Fishermen's Union have not heard of this petition. The San 
Francisco branch of the Alaska Fishermen's Union is by far the largest in membrship. 
We doubt if 800 signatures of bona fide Alaska fishermen could be obtained to a peti- 
tion to abolish traps. 

Referring to Delegate Wickersham's statement, April 19, pages 13 and 14, Alaska 
canners do not sell their employees anything to eat and drink. Subsistence is fur- 
nished free. Alaska is not minus $10,000,000 or even 1 cent, as all the salmon caught 
would have died the same season from natural causes. All that is necessary to keep 
up the supply is to allow sufficient salmon to reach the spawning ground. Under 
ordinary conditions, comparatively few fish will suffice for this, and Alaskan waters 
have never been overfished. The total value of all the raw salmon caught in Alaska 
in any one season never exceeded $1,250,000 and there never has been a season when 
more money has not been expended in Alaska by salmon canners for local labor, for 
material and supplies purchased from Alaskan dealers and manufacturers and in per- 
manent improvements. The canneries have been a blessing to the development of 
the Territory and have taken nothing away that would cause a loss, as there are fully 
as many salmon running now as there have been in the past. With all the costly and 
not movable improvements, permanency of the business is of the greatest necessity to 
the canners. 

Alaska Packers Association. 

It has also been stated that this association has practically paid 
all its taxes through the use of hatchery certificates. To give the 
exact figures, we quote below the statement of the association as 
follows : 

[Telegram.] 

San Francisco, Cal., February 18, 1910. 
Britton & Gray, 

1419 F Street NW., Washington, D. C. 
Since passage of 1906 fisheries act 351,943,412 fry were liberated. If you can secure 
access to them, Fisheries Bureau have complete reports of fry liberated since hatch- 
eries were started in 1896. Our Alaska pack in 1906 about 45 per cent of total output; 
1907, 50 per cent; 1908, 42 per cent; 1909, 48 per cent. Taxes paid 1906, $37,014.16 
in hatchery certificates and $3,331.94 in cash; 1907, $39,916 in hatchery certificates 
and $379.74 in cash; 1908, $35,668.80 in hatchery certificates and $9,943.46 in cash; 
1909, $23,956 in hatchery certificates and $19,861.82 in cash. We also pay mercantile 
taxes, but not worth mentioning; average about $300 annually. We estimate total 
1909 pack approximately 2,250,000 cases. The selling value of the total 1909 salmon 
Alaska pack to original purchasers on arrival at San Francisco, Seattle, or Columbia 
River, at market rates ruling at time of arrival, was a little less than $8,500,000. The 
cost of production was over $7,250,000; this includes upward of $3,000,000 paid for 
labor to employees, many of them being natives, and other residents of Alaska. The 
value of the raw fish taken by the salmon canners from Alaskan waters during 1909 
was less than $1,250,000, a value above the average of past years. The private hatch- 
eries were originally ordered to be constructed and maintained by the Government. 
They are operated at a loss, as the 40 cents per thousand fry tax remittance does not 
pay one-half of the cost of the hatcheries. 

Alaska Packers Association. 

It was also suggested at the hearing by Delegate Wickersham that 
the use of traps should be abolished. This subject is fully covered 
by the statement of Doctor Evermann at the hearing (April 25, pp. 



FISHERIES IX ALASKA. 9 

4, 5) and Alaska Salmon Agent Marsh (Hearing, May 3, p. 6). Call- 
ing attention thereto, we add below the statement of the association 
on that point, as well as the figures given by the association, showing 
the large sums expended by it in Alaska for the benefit of Alaska 
residents and the Indians there: 

[Telegram.] 

San Francisco, Cal., April 27, 1910. 
Britton & Gray, 

1419 F street NW., Washington, D. C: 

Alaska salmon pack is distributed about as follows: Northern Alaska, one-half; 
central Alaska, one-sixth ; southeastern Alaska, one-third . Of the red salmon, northern 
Alaska packs 65 per cent; central Alaska, 25 per cent; southeastern Alaska, 10 per cent. 
Th 3 distribution of our association pack is northern Alaska, 60 per cent; central Alaska, 
25 percent; southeastern Alaska, 15 per cent. In northern Alaska less than 3 per cent 
of all salmon are caught in traps. In central Alaska about 25 per cent of all salmon 
are caught in traps. In southeastern Alaska about 50 per cent of all salmon are caught 
in traps. Southeastern Alaska salmon fisheries have been greatly developed in the 
past four years owing to the successful employment of traps, other methods of fishing 
having been found impracticable. Methods of fishing vary as to locality. Traps 
impracticable in some locations, purse seines in others, gill nets in some, and shore 
seines in almost all. A general abolishing of any method would mean the closing of 
fisheries where such method is the principal one in effective use. Results of fishing 
at Karluk vary in different seasons like those of all other localities. Average catches 
fully sustained. Value of hatcheries unquestionable. 

It is difficult to give exact figures on what is paid in wages to different classes of 
employees of canneries. Based on our own expenditures, annual total amount would 
be about §3,500,000. To this must be added cost of subsistence which is furnished. 
This amount is divided about as follows: One million eight hundred thousand dollars 
to white nonresidents of Alaska, $400,000 to Chinese, $400,000 to Filipinos and Forto 
Ricans, $200,000 to Japanese, etc., $450,000 to white residents of Alaska, $250,000 to 
Alaska natives. 

Fishing done entirely by whites and natives, other labor by all races employed. 
The desirable Chinese labor formerly more generally employed in salmon canneries 
is getting very scarce owing to exclusion act. Filipino labor is promising and best 
substitute for the class of work formerly performed by Chinese. Japanese undesirable 
because unreliable and trouble making. Most Alaska native labor very good, but 
not obtainable in sufficient numbers. We pay Alaska natives $3 to $4 and subsistence 
per man per day. 

Alaska Packers Association. 

We submit the foregoing statements without further comment, 
because it would unduly lengthen this paper. But we may properly 
add that they answer in full detail all the criticism which has been 
suggested at the hearing. The association's representative was 
asked at the hearing to submit a copy of its annual statement for 
the three preceding years. Same are herewith submitted for the 
years 1908 and 1909. Attached to the report of 1908 will be found a 
comparative statement of the dividends paid by the association. It 
emphasizes the statement hereinabove made from the association that, 
after seventeen years, the dividends paid have not equaled the amount 
of capital stock invested nor has the market value of the stock ever 
reached par. This is a complete answer to the suggestion that the 
salmon-canning industry in Alaska is in any way unduly profitable. 
Measured by the hazard involved, and the sad experience of many 
who have invested their means therein, it is within the absolute 
truth to say that far more money has been invested in the Alaska 
fisheries than has been taken therefrom by way of profit. Disaster 
and bankruptcy have overtaken many concerns, and the tremendous 



10 FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 

losses of a single season have wiped out the profits of previous years, 
as well as mortgaged the uncertain future. 

This association is in entire accord with the express desire of the 
Bureau of Fisheries to conserve the salmon supply of Alaska, and has 
cooperated in the years past, and is now cooperating with the bureau 
to that end ; it has furnished, and continues to furnish, every possible 
facility to the Government in its investigations of practical fishing 
operations and the results thereof. Its enormous investment of 
capital in the industry renders its interest therein more keen and 
engrossing than any other private concern engaged in this hazardous 
business in Alaskan waters. It only desires that just measure of 
protection to invested capital and that just equality in taxation 
which it is both the wise policy and desire of the Federal Government 
to extend. It has cheerfully paid the taxes hitherto imposed since 
1899 upon its own product; it is ready to meet the increased tax 
proposed thereon, but it does insist that beyond that point taxation 
of a food product (exempt from taxation by the Federal Government 
elsewhere throughout the whole United States and its possessions) 
should not be increased by the taxation also of the property used in 
producing that product. When Alaska shall have been so far 
developed in population and otherwise as to justify the taxation of 
realty outside of the few municipalities which exist therein, so that all 
shall be treated alike in that regard, then taxation of canneries may 
become matter for consideration. But to yield to the suggestion that 
such character of property should now be taxed, leaving all other 
property outside of the municipalities in the District of Alaska 
exempt, would be a manifest unequal burden which this fishing 
industry could not stand. 

Alaska Packers' Association, 
By Britton & Gray, Attorneys. 

Yv'ashington, D. C, June 18, 1910. 



APPENDIX NO. 1. 

[House Report No. 2657, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

PROTECTION AND REGULATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 

The Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 13543) entitled 
"A bill for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," having duly con- 
sidered the same, hereby recommend that all of said bill after the enacting clause be 
stricken out and in lieu thereof there be inserted the substitute bill presented here- 
with, and as thus amended it is recommended that said bill do pass. 

The bill as thus amended is the result of extended hearings had before this com- 
mittee, at which there were present, besides the author of the bill, representatives of 
the Department of Commerce and Labor and of the Bureau of Fisheries of the United 
States. That department and bureau are charged with the enforcement of the laws 
pertaining to the fisheries of Alaska and with the duty of protecting and preserv- 
ing those iisheries, including the important element of fish culture by artificial 
propagation. 

There were also present at said hearings a number of representatives of the Alaska 
salmon packers, and it is gratifying to report that all interests are now fully agreed 
upon the fairness and efficiency of the proposed bill as an adequate measure for the 
regulation and protection of the great fisheries of Alaska, and that this committee is 
also in full accord with such views. 

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor has officially indorsed the substitute bill 
herewith reported by the following letter: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Wdshvnglon, March 15, 1906. 
Sir: In accordance with the suggestion of the Committee on Territories, officers of 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, in conjunction with the representatives of 
Alaskan salmon packers who appeared before your committee, have carefully consid- 
ered the bill (H. R. 13543) for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of 
Alaska, introduced by Hon. F. W. Cushman, and which is now pending before y ur 
committee. 

As a result of this conference and consideration, I am transmitting to you herewith 
a redraft of the bill in question. It is the opinion of the department that the redraft 
of the bill now submitted will provide as complete and satifsactory protection and 
regulation for the Alaskan salmon fisheries as present conditions make possible. 

This whole matter has received the exhaustive consideration of the department 
for several months past, and the provisions of the bill now submitted have been 
carefully considered in detail. For the reasons above stated, I have the honor 
to urgently recommend that the bill receive the favorable consideration of the 
committee. 

Respectfully, V. H. Metcalf, 

Secretary. 
Hon. Edward L. Hamilton, 

Chairman Committee on Territories, House of Re presented ires. 

Commercial fishing is one of the large and important industries of the Pacific coast, 
and especially of Alaska, where salmon, cod, halibut, herring, and other food fishes 
are found in great abundance. 

With her 25,000 or more miles of coast line, Alaska affords an immense field for the 
fisherman. It is, however, essential that her fisheries be so regulated and con- 
served that they may be saved from depletion and at the same time that those law- 
fully engaged in pursuit of this important industry may not be unreasonably hampered 
and restricted in their operations, and it is believed that the accompanying bill, if 
enacted into law, will accomplish these desirable ends. 

The business of canning salmon in Alaska was begun in a small way about the year 
1878 and has steadily grown to large proportions. 

There are at present some 25 different companies engaged in canning salmon in 
Alaska, operating about 50 canneries. These canneries are well scattered along the 

11 



12 



FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 



coast from Bristol Bay, in Bering Sea, on the north, to Dixons Entrance, the southern 
boundary of the Territory on the south. The annual output in cases (each case con- 
taining 48 cans, each can containing 1 pound of fish, or the equivalent in other sizes) 
from the inception of the industry to the present time is given as follows: 



Year. 


Cases 
packed. 


Year. 


Cases 
packed. 


1878 


8,159 

12,530 

6,539 

8,977 

10,244 

36,000 

54, 000 

74,850 

120,700 

190, 200 

427,372 

709,347 

688, 332 

789, 294 


1892 


461,482 


1879 


1893 


645,545 


1880 


1894 


678,501 
619,379 
958, 700 


1881 


1895 


1882 


1896 


1883 


1897 


969,950 

956,979 

1,098,833 


1884 , 


1898 


1885 


1899 


1886 


1900 


1,534,745 
2,034,895 


1887 


1901 


1888... 


1902 


2,554,423 
2,251,085 
1,953,746 
1,885,316 


1889 


1903 


1890... 


1904 


1891 


1905 









Fluctuations in the packs of recent years are largely due to market and trade con^ 
ditions rather than to important variations in the runs of the fish. 

Salmon is also prepared by salting in considerable quantities, and other varieties 
of fish are being extensively caught, but canned salmon constitutes by far the greatest 
output from the Alaskan fisheries. Canned salmon is sold all over the civilized world 
as a low-priced article of wholesome and nutritious food. It is used extensively in 
the army and navy of the United States as a food ration. 

The prevailing prices of Alaska canned salmon over the counter are said to be from 
10 cents to 15 cents per can, containing 1 pound of fish. The wholesale prices at Pacific 
coast rail shipping points vary from about $2.50 to $4 per case, according to variety. 

Alaska salmon includes five important varieties, which may be classified as follows: 





Variety. 


Order of importance. 




Quality. 


Quantity. 




First 
...do 


First. 




Fifth. 




Second 

Third 
Fourth 


Fourth. 








Third. 







The Alaska salmon industry employs each season approximately 12,000 people, 
including about 2,000 Alaskan natives who are given work at the stations; 120 steamers 
and launches and 50 sailing vessels, and annually disburses in wages $2,500,000 or there- 
abouts. It is estimated that the cash capital employed in the business is about 
$15,000,000. 

The bill herewith reported is designed to reenact and harmonize many provisions 
of existing laws relating to Alaskan fisheries; to enlarge and extend the scope of restrict- 
ive features on fishing, and to include such further provisions for protection and regu- 
lation as are deemed essential to preserve and perpetuate the fisheries and to increase 
the natural supply by artificial propagation, which can be successfully carried on in 
those waters both by public and private enterprise. 



APPENDIX NO. 2. 

Sixteenth Annual Statement Alaska Packers Association, San Francisco, 
with President's Report, 1908. 

directors and officers, 1908. 

Directors. — Henry F. Fortmann, Isaac Liebes, W. D. Bradford, D. Drysdale, Francis 
Cutting, Wm. L. Gerstle, F. B. Anderson, Louis Sloss, C. W. Dorr, Henry E. Bothin, 
George L. Payne. 



FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 13 

Officers. — Henry F. Fortmann, president; Louis Sloes, vice-president; C. W. Dorr, 
vice-president and general counsel; Isaac Liebes, treasurer; William Timson, secre- 
tary. 

San Francisco, January 19, 1909. 
To the stockholders of the Alaska Packers' Association: 

On behalf of the board of directors of this corporation, I submit the following report 
of the business of the association for the year 1908: 

Capitalization. — The capitalization of the company remained the same, viz., 
$7,500,000 authorized capital, divided into 75,000 shares of the par value of $100 each. 
The present issue is 57,508 shares, leaving 17,492 shares in the treasury of the company. 

Auditing. — In accordance with the usual custom, all of the books, accounts, and 
vouchers of the association were examined, checked, and audited by our auditor, Mr. 
W. W. Armstrong, who has reported as follows: 

San Francisco, January 9, 1909. 
To the President and Board op Directors of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Gentlemen: Since my last annual report my duties as general auditor of the asso- 
ciation have been as follows: (1) Counting the cash on hand daily, verifying cashbook 
balance. (2) Checking daily financial statement. (3) Checking vouchers for all cash 
disbursed during the year. (4) Checking bank accounts monthly. (5) Auditing 
cashier's and voucher clerk's bills for all purchases and payments, being a check upon 
the cashier, purchasing, and shipping departments for goods ordered, delivered, priced, 
calculated, and approved. (6) Checking postings of controlling and subsidiary 
ledgers, with their auxiliary books, journals, and cashbook. (7) Checking salmon 
invoices with salmon journal. (8) Checking final reports of salmon discharged from 
vessel, disposing of entire cargo. (9) Checking warehouse receipts and deliveries. 
(10) Recording all stock transferred during the year, as per stock transfer journal and 
ledger. 

Status at the closing of the books, January 9, 1909: Shares 

Outstanding of old issue 790 

New issue of May 1, 1905 56, 718 

Total issue 57, 508 

All of the foregoing work I have the honor to report as being correct. 
Respectfully, 

W. W. Armstrong, Auditor. 

The accounts have also been audited by Price, Waterhouse & Co., chartered account- 
ants, and their certificate is attached. 

Insurance, accounts. — The association carries its own fire insurance on all buildings, 
wharves, machinery, equipments, material, and office furniture; and generally 
one-half of the value of canned salmon and merchandise stored in San Francisco; 
and carries its own marine insurance on all floating property and on cargoes of box 
shooks, lumber, and coal. All up and down general cargoes are insured at full values. 

The ship Lucile, owned by F. B. Peterson & Co., was lost at Ugashik on August 19, 
1908. This vessel carried at the time 4,884 cases and 300 barrels of salmon, property 
of the association. 

The bark Star of Bengal, owned by the association, together with her cargo of 52,062 
cases of salmon, was lost on Coronation Island, Alaska, September 20, 1908. 

The cargoes of these vessels were insured and the insurance money has been col- 
lected. 

The losses charged to insurance reserve during the year, for the Star of Bengal and 
some minor marine losses, amounted to $101,651.52. 

There have been no losses caused by fire during 1908. 

The insurance account at the close of 1907 showed a reserve of $232,358.03, and was 
credited with $216,734.53 for the 1908 earnings. It has now $347,441.04 to its credit. 

Pack. — The association's pack of salmon for the season was about 30 per cent of the 
entire coast pack, as follows: 

Cases. 

Sockeye 42, 974 

Red 878, 411 

King 13, 058 

Coho 20, 226 

Pink 183, 847 

Chums 21, 961 

Total 1, 160, 477 

Salt salmon barrels. . 9, 335 



14 FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 

An increase of 60,442 cases and 5,544 barrels over the pack of 1907. 
Markets. — During 1908 the demand for salmon has kept up and the prices have been 
satisfactory, except for the cheaper grades; these are sold principally in the Southern 
States and in South America. An abnormally large carry-over by many canners of 
cheap fish of the 1907 pack, combined with stagnation of the markets in these countries, 
caused a depression in the prices of pink and chum salmon. At present the supplies 
of these grades are still in excess of the immediate demand. 

Cflnneries.— The X cannery on Kvichak Bay, which was almost totally destroyed 
by fire in May, 1906, has been reconstructed and will be operated during the season 
of 1909. The following canneries were operated: 

Alaska: 

Nushagak 3 

Kvichak 1 

Naknek 2 

Egegak 1 

Chignik 1 

Alitak 1 

Karluk 2 

Cook Inlet 1 

Pyramid Harbor 1 

Fort Wrangell 1 

Loring 1 

15 
Puget Sound, Semiahmoo 1 

Total 16 

Current repairs amounting to 178,755.85 have been charged to operating cost. New 
improvements to canneries have been made at a cost of $65,555.25, including the build- 
ing of the X cannery. There has been $116,479.93 written off from cannery plants 
on account of depreciation, making the present appraised value of plants $4,284,883.79, 
or $65,857.10 less than last year. 

Fleet. — The steel barks Star of Scotland and Star of Iceland have been purchased 
for $110,000. The launches Petrel, Teal, and Brant were built at a cost of $9,372.17. 
The steamer Thistle and the launch Northern Light have been sold for $6,075, and the 
small launch Raven condemned. 

There has been expended for repairs to the fleet the amount of $136,357.22. New 
improvements have been added to the fleet at a cost of $15,160.90. There has been 
written off from fleet values for depreciation the sum of $91,309.32, leaving the present 
appraised value of our fleet $1,237,850. 

The association now owns 9 ships, 7 barks, 1 barkentine, 2 schooners, and 57 steam- 
ers, and launches, a total of 76 vessels. 

Medical stations. — The association maintains six medical stations in Alaska. All 
employees and all natives are given free medical treatment and medicines. 

Expenditures in Alaska. — The association has again made large disbursements for 
material, etc., in Alaska, continuing its policy to assist in developing this Territory. 
During the season of 1908 the expenditures of this company in Alaska amounted to 
over $250,000. 

Salmon hatcheries. — The two salmon hatcheries of the association have continued 
operations. During 1908, from the 47,808,200 red salmon eggs taken in 1907, at the 
Karluk salmon hatchery, 43,655,000 fry were liberated, and 40,320,000 red salmon 
eggs were taken. From the 41,280,000 red salmon eggs taken at the Fortmann salmon 
hatchery in 1907, 33,920,000 fry were liberated, and 24,465,000 red salmon eggs were 
taken in 1908. 

In Alaska the Government continued operating a large hatchery on McDonald Lake, 
and has completed a second hatchery at Litnik, Afognak Island. 

Physical condition of plants and fleet. — The canneries, hatcheries, shipyard, and fleet 
of the association have all been constantly kept in a very high class condition, and 
more than fully equipped to meet all demands on them. Each cannery has machine 
and general repair shops; every cannery district is provided with ship ways to haul 
out vessels; large stocks of material, reserve machinery, and other equipments are kept 
on hand to provide for all probable contingencies. 

Bonded indebtedness. — During the year 1908, $231,000 of the bonds of the association 
were redeemed and canceled, reducing the bonded indebtedness to $1,609,000. 

Profits for the year. — The financial statement shows the gross profits for the year to 
be $880,682.34. In addition to the amounts as shown above to have been written off 



FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 



15 



from canneries and fleet, the further sum of $9,785.01 has been deducted from ship- 
yard and office values, making the total write-off for the year $217, 574. 26, leaving the net 
profits $603,108.08. 

For the board of directors: 

Henry F. Fortmann, President. 



CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. 

San Francisco, January 14, 1909. 
To the stockholders of the Alaska Packers Association, 

San Francisco, Cal. 
We hereby certify that we have examined the books of the Alaska Packers 'Associ- 
ation for the year ending December 31, 1908, and that the balance sheet at that date 
is correctly prepared therefrom, and shows the true financial condition of the com- 
pany at that date. 

We have satisfied ourselves that during the year actual betterments only have been 
charged to plant and fleet accounts, and that reasonable provision has been made 
for depreciation, all current repairs for the upkeep having been charged to operating 
cost. 

We have also satisfied ourselves that the inventories have been taken at San Fran- 
cisco cost prices, and that full provision has been made for bad and doubtful accounts 
receivable, and for all ascertainable liabilities. 

Price, Waterhotjse & Co., 

Chartered Accountants. 

Annual statement Alaska Packers Association, year 1908. 
Assets: 

Canneries, fishing stations, etc $4, 284, 883. 79 

Fleet 1, 237, 850. 00 

Inventories 1, 317, 462. 19 

Unexpired insurance 2, 240. 42 

Accounts receivable 289, 081. 74 

Cash on hand 395, 686. 36 

Profit and loss 428, 439. 51 

$7, 955, 644. 01 

Liabilities: 

Capital stock 5, 750, 800. 00 

Bonds 1, 609, 000. 00 

Current indebtedness 248, 402. 97 

Insurance reserve fund 347, 441. 04 

7, 955, 644. 01 

William Timson, Secretary. 

San Francisco, December SI, 1908. 

Alaska Packers' Association, comparative statement— 16 years. 



Year. 


Gross 
profits 
before 
writing 
down 
values 
and pay- 
ing divi- 
dends. 


Written 
off. 


Divi- 
dends 
paid. 


Surplus. 


Capital 

stock 

paid in. 


Shares 
issued 
(par 
value 
$100.) 


Canner- 
ies oper- 
ated. 


Cases 
packed. 


1893 


$461,452 
494,679 
607,615 
665,689 
627,306 
766,078 
829,021 
1,155,869 
862,886 
801,383 
1,142,255 
109,198 
"1,074/402 
213,571 
831,421 
880,682 






$461,452 

80,316 

151,121 

197,481 

104, 134 

166,786 

253,030 

422,012 

349,744 

151,962 

349,823 

a 583, 758 

a&3,459,494 

1,639 

609, 646 

663, 108 


$2,841,280 
3,079,505 
3,079,505 
3,079,505 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 
3,120,000 

65,750,800 
5,750,800 
5,750,800 
5, 750, 800 


43,712 
47,377 
47,377 
47,377 
48,000 
48,000 
48,000 
48,000 
48,000 
48,000 
48,000 
48,000 
57,508 
57, 508 
57,508 
57,508 


13 
14 
16 
18 
19 
19 
19 
20 
22 
23 
23 
21 
16 
16 
16 
16 


462,650 


1894 


$20,955 

30, 101 

41,815 

91,640 

167,292 

143.991 

301,857 

81,142 

73,421 

216,432 

140,956 

345,437 

211,932 

221,775 

217, 574 


$393,408 
426,393 
426, 393 
431,532 
432,000 
432,000 
432,000 
432,000 
576,000 
576,000 
552,000 
62,039,655 


556, 494 


1895 


526, 806 


1896 


699,826 


1897 


818,207 


1898 


775,969 


1899 


877,723 


1900 


1,004,318 


1901 


1,273,566 


1902 


1,306,947 


1903 

1904 


1,334,824 
1,170,474 


1905 


1,139,721 


1906 


1,044,676 


1907 




1,100,035 


1908 




1,160,477 








Total 


9,374,703 


2,306,320 


7,149,381 


a80, 998 


5,750,800 


57,508 




15,252,713 









a Reductions. 



6 Includes $1,680,000 transferred to capital stock. 



16 FISHERIES IK" ALASKA. 

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS ELECTED FOR YEAR 1909. 

Directors. — Henry F. Fortmann, Isaac Liebes, W. B. Bradford, D. Drysdale, Francis 
Cutting, William L. Gerstle, Louis Sloss, Henry E. Bothin, George L. Payne, John 
Daniel, William Timson. 

Officers. — Henry F. Fortmann, president; Louis Sloss, vice-president; William 
Timson, vice-president; Isaac Liebes, treasurer; A. K. Tichenor, secretary; G. E. 
Geary, cashier. 



APPENDIX No. 3. 

Seventeenth Annual Statement Alaska Packers Association, San Francisco, 

1909. 

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, 1909. 

Directors. — Henry F. Fortmann, Isaac Liebes, W. B. Bradford, D. Drysdale, Francis 
Cutting, Wm. L. Gerstle, Louis Sloss, Henry E. Bothin, George L. Payne, John Daniel, 
William Timson. 

Officers. — Henry F. Fortmann, president; Louis Sloss, vice-president; William 
Timson, vice-president; Isaac Liebes, treasurer; A. K. Tichenor, secretary. 

San Francisco, January 18, 1910. 
To the stockholders of the Alaska Packers Association: 

On behalf of the board of directors of this corporation, I submit the following report 
of the business of the association for the year 1909: 

Capitalization. — The capitalization of the company remained the same, viz, 
$7,500,000 authorized capital, divided into 75,000 shares of the par value of $100 each. 
The present issue is 57,508 shares, leaving 17,492 shares in the treasury of the company. 

Auditing. — In accordance with the usual custom, all of the books, accounts, and 
vouchers of the association were examined, checked, and audited by the auditor, 
Mr. W. W. Armstrong, who has reported as follows: 

San Francisco, January 8, 1910. 
To the President and Board of Directors 

of the Alaska Packers Association. 

Gentlemen : Since my last annual report, my duties as general auditor of the asso- 
ciation have been as follows: 

(1) Counting the cash on hand daily, verifying cash book balance. (2) Checking 
daily financial statement. (3) Checking vouchers for all cash disbursed during the 
year. (4) Checking bank accounts monthly. (5) Auditing cashier's and voucher 
clerk's bills for all purchases and payments, being a check upon cashier, purchasing, 
and shipping departments for goods ordered, delivered, priced, calculated, and 
approved. (6) Checking postings of controlling and subsidiary ledgers, with their 
auxiliary books, journals, and cash book. (7) Checking salmon invoices with salmon 
journal. (8) Checking final reports of salmon discharged from vessels, disposing of 
entire cargoes. (9) Checking warehouse receipts and deliveries. (10) Recording all 
stock transferred during the year, as per stock-transfer journal and ledger. 

Status at the closing of the books, January 8, 1910: 

Shares. 

Outstanding of old issue 130 

New issue of May 1, 1905 57, 378 

Total issue 57, 508 

All of the foregoing work I have the honor to report as being correct. 
Respectfully, 

W. W. Armstrong-, Auditor. 

The accounts have also been audited by Price, Waterhouse & Co., chartered account- 
ants, and their certificate is attached. 

Insurance accounts. — The association carries its own insurance on buildings, wharves, 
machinery, equipments, furniture, and on product jn the course of manufacture and 
finished in its own plants; also on all floating property and on cargoes of box shooks, 
lumber, and coal. All up-and-down general cargoes are insured at full values, and 
salmon and merchandise stored in warehouses in San Francisco at about one-half their 
values. 



FISHEKIES IN ALASKA. 17 

Insurance funds. — At the close of 1908 the fund showed a credit of $347,441.04 and 
earned $237,835.34 for 1909. The amounts charged for losses and expenses aggregate 
$26,787.60. The insurance fund now amounts to $558,488.78; of- this $556,688.45 is 
invested in bonds. 

Pack. — The association's pack of salmon for the season was about 27 per cent of the 
entire coast pack, as follows : 

Cases. 

Sockeye 159, 949 

Red 857,232 

King : 25, 797 

Coho 16,860 

Pink 264, 759 

Chums 13, 657 

Total .' 1, 338, 254 

Salt salmon barrels. . 6, 537 

An increase of 177,777 cases and a decrease of 2,798 barrels over the pack of 1908. 
Markets. — During the early part of 1909 the salmon markets were rather quiet. 
Since August, the demand has been brisk in all countries except South America. 
Plants. — The following canneries were operated : 

Alaska: 

Nushagak 2 

Kvichak 2 

Naknek 2 

Egegak 1 

Chignik 1 

Alitak 1 

Karluk 2 

Cook Inlet 1 

Fort Wrangell ] 

Loring : 1 

14 

Puget Sound: 

Semiahmoo 1 

Point Roberts 1 

Anacortes 1 

3 

Total 17 

Current repairs and replacements amounting to $168,738.08 have been charged to 
operating cost. New improvements and additions to plants have been made at a 
cost of $123,490.55. There has been written off from plants on account of depreciation 
$142,906.82, making the present appraised value of plants $4,257,486.42, or $27,397.37 
less than last year. 

Fleet. — The steel barks Star of Holland and Star of Greenland have been purchased 
for $122,500. 

The launches Hawk, Plover, and the fire boat Phoenixwere built at a cost of $25,042.86. 

There has been expended for improvements and repairs to the fleet the amount 
of $176,921.82. There has been written off from fleet values for depreciation the sum 
of $104,970.26, leaving the present appraised value of the fleet $1,281,700. 

The association now owns 9 ships, 9 barks, 1 barkentine, 2 schooners, and 59 steamers 
and launches, a total of 80 vessels. 

Medical stations. — The association maintains six medical stations in Alaska. All 
employees and all natives are given free medical treatment and medicines. 

Expenditures in Alaska. — The policy of the association to assist in the development 
of Alaska has been continued, and expenditures exceeding $250,000 for the year were 
made in the Territory. 

Salmon hatcheries. — The two salmon hatcheries of the association have continued 
operations. During 1909, from the 40,320,000 red salmon eggs taken in 1908 at the 
Karluk salmon hatchery, 36,075,000 fry were liberated, and 45,228,000 red salmon 
eggs were taken. From the 24,465,000 red salmon eggs taken at the Fortmann salmon 
hatchery in 1908 22,785,000 fry were liberated, and 53,340,000 red salmon eggs were 
taken in 1909. 

4S684— 10 12 



18 FISHERIES IN ALASKA. 

In Alaska the Government continued operating large salmon hatcheries on McDonald 
Lake and at Litnik, Afognak Island. 

Physical condition of plants and fleet. — The canneries, hatcheries, shipyard, and 
fleet of the association have all been kept in a very high-class condition and more 
than fully equipped to meet all demands on them. Each cannery has machine and 
general repair shops; every cannery district is provided with ship-ways to haul out 
vessels; large stocks of material, reserve machinery, and other equipments are kept 
on hand to provide for all probable contingencies. 

The shipyard at Alameda is equipped with a general woodworking plant, machine 
shop, and other appliances sufficient to make all but the larger improvements and 
repairs to vessels and to build and repair all cannery machinery. 

Bonded indebtedness. — During the year 1909, $287,000 of the bonds of the association 
were redeemed and canceled, reducing the bonded indebtedness to $1,322,000. 

Profits for the year. — The insurance fund has increased $211,047.74. 

The profits for 1909 were $779,728.69. 

Dividends. — A dividend of $1.50 per share on the capital stock of the corporation 
has been declared, payable February 10, 1910. 

For the board of directors: 

Henry F. Fortmann, President. 

San Francisco, January 12, 1910. 
To the Stockholders of the Alaska Packers' Association, San Francisco, Cal.: 

We hereby certify that we have examined the books of the Alaska Packers' Associa- 
tion for the year ending December 31, 1909, and that the balance sheet at that date is 
correctly prepared therefrom, and shows the true financial condition of the company 
at that date. 

We have satisfied ourselves that during the year actual betterments only have been 
charged to plant and fleet accounts, and that reasonable provision has been made for 
depreciation, all current repairs and replacements having been charged to operating 
cost. 

We have also -satisfied ourselves that the inventories have been taken at San Fran- 
cisco cost prices, and that full provision has been made for bad and doubtful accounts 
receivable, and for all ascertainable liabilities. 

The insurance fund investments, the securities for which were exhibited to us on 
December 30, 1909, are carried at less than their market value on December 31, 1909. 

Price, Waterhouse & Co. 

Chartered Accountants. 

Annual statement Alaska Packers Association, year 1909. 

A QQO'f'C! * 

Canneries, fleet, etc $5, 539, 186. 42 

Inventories - 1, 010, 408. 26 

Insurance fund investments 556, 688. 45 

Accounts receivable 595, 035. 60 

Cash on hand 355, 563. 70 

$8, 056, 882. 43 



Liabilities: 

Capital stock 5, 750, 800. 00 

Bonds 1, 322, 000. 00 

Current indebtedness 74, 304. 47 

Insurance fund 558, 488. 78 

Profit and loss 351, 289. 18 



8, 056, 882. 43 



A. K. Tichenor, 

Secretary. 
San Francisco, December 31, 1909. 



FISHEKIES IN ALASKA. 19 

Insurance fund investments — Bonds. 

California Gas and Electric, general mortgage and C. T $95, 000 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 25, 000 

Los Angeles Pacific Railroad of California 25, 000 

Valley Counties Power Company 25, 000 

Pacific Light and Power Company (Gtd.) 50, 000 

United Gas and Electric Company 50, 000 

Northern Electric Company 50, 000 

Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company 50, 000 

Spring Valley Water Company, general mortgage 50, 000 

Southern Pacific Railroad Company, first refunding 88, 000 

City of Los Angeles, water 64, 000 

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS ELECTED FOR YEAR 1910. 

Directors. — Henry F. Fortmann, Isaac Liebes, W. B. Bradford, D. Drysdale, Francis 
Cutting, William L. Gerstle, Louis Sloss, Henry E. Bothin, George L. Payne, John 
Daniel, William Timson. 

Officers. — Henry F. Fortmann, president; Louis Sloss, vice-president; William 
Timson, vice-president; Isaac Liebes, treasurer; A. K. Tichenor, secretary; G. E. 
Geary, cashier. m 

o 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO FISH 

ERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS 

IN ALASKA 



LETTER OF 
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR 



MAY 25, 1910 



Sixty-first Congress, Second Session 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



AMENDMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO FISHERIES AND OTHER 
OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives. 
The following is a letter from the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, received by the committee since the closing of the foregoing 
hearings, and suggesting certain further amendments of the bill 
H. R. 22579 and the existing law: 



■6 



Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, May 25, 1910. 
Hon. E. L. Hamilton, 

Chairman Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
Sir: In reply to your letter of the 20th instant, in which you 
request the opinion of the department with respect to changes 
advisable in the present Alaska fisheries law, after consideration of 
the act of June 26, 1906, section by section, the following recom- 
mendations are submitted: 

1. Sections 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are satisfactory. 

2. Section 1 should be modified in accordance with the schedule 
already submitted at the hearing of May 3. This schedule is along 
the lines indicated by Judge Wickersham in H. R. 22579. 

3. Section 2 should remain until more adequate facilities are pro- 
vided for fish-cultural work by the Federal Government. All fish- 
cultural work in Alaska should eventually be carried on by the 
Federal Government. This can be brought about by the abolition 
of the present exemption system, the taking over of such private 
hatcheries as the owners may desire to turn over to the Government, 
and the establishment of additional federal hatcheries. 

4. In section 3, line 2, strike out the words "for purposes of fish- 
culture" and insert in lieu thereof "by direction of the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor;" and in lines 4 and 5 strike out the words 
"where the same is less than five hundred feet in width." 

5. In section 4, line 2, strike out the words "for purposes of fish 
culture" and insert in lieu thereof "by direction of the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor." 

6. In section 6, lines 6 and 7, strike out the words "five hundred 
yards of the mouth thereof" and insert in lieu thereof "such distance 
from the mouth thereof as in his judgment is necessary." 

7. The matter covered by section 9 is now fully covered by the 
pure food and drugs act, food inspection decision No. 105, and this 
section mav therefore be omitted. 



4 FISHERIES AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS IN ALASKA. 

8. The following additional sections are now recommended: 

Section — . That for the purposes of this act the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
is authorized to determine and indicate by suitable markers the mouth of any creek, 
stream, or river in Alaska which salmon enter for spawning purposes. 

Sec. — . That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor is authorized and directed to 
establish such regulations, not inconsistent with existing law, as may in his judgment 
be necessary for the proper protection and conservation of shellfish and other aquatic 
animals not otherwise mentioned in this act. 

Sec. — . That it shall be unlawful to erect, maintain, or operate in Alaska any new 
establishment for canning or otherwise preserving for commercial use any salmon or 
other fish or fishery product, or to increase the capacity of any such existing establish- 
ment, or to reopen and operate any such establishment which has remained closed for 
the period of three years immediately preceding the passage of this act, without first 
obtaining the approval in writing of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Provided, however, That in the case of salmon-packing establishments approval shall 
be withheld only when in his judgment the fishing operations and investigations in the 
region adjacent to the proposed location indicate that the number of salmon taken is 
larger than the reproductive increase of salmon from adjacent spawning grounds: And 
provided further , That in case approval is withheld the applicant interested shall upon 
demand be given a hearing, of which he shall be notified at least thirty days previously. 

Sec. — . That it shall be unlawful, after January first, nineteen hundred and eleven, 
to utilize any part of any food fish save the offal and refuse thereof in the manufacture 
of fertilizer or fish oil. 

Sec. — . That the provisions of sections thirteen and sixteen of chapter four hundred 
and twenty-five of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
purposes," approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety -nine, shall be applied 
to the protection of the fisheries of Alaska, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
and his agents for the protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska, and any officer or 
employee of the Department of Commerce and Labor designated by him, shall be 
charged with the enforcement of said section thirteen and shall have the same power 
and authority in all respects to swear out process and arrest, as the several officials 
named in section seventeen of chapter four hundred and twenty -five of the above act. 

Respectfully, 

Charles Nagel, Secretary. 

o 



LB '»2 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2007 

PreservationTechnologiesi j 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION j 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



